BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities Bill [ Lords]  (By Order )

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Bill to be read a Second time on Wednesday 13 January.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked-

Aluminium Industry

Robert Goodwill: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on the future of the aluminium industry in Wales.

Wayne David: We remain committed to supporting the aluminium industry in Wales, as we demonstrated with our strenuous efforts to save jobs at Anglesey Aluminium over the summer.

Robert Goodwill: To be fair to the Government, I guess that they did as much as they could to try to ensure the survival of Anglesey Aluminium, but is not the fundamental problem the operation of the European Union emissions trading system, which is making it increasingly difficult for primary metallurgical industries to operate in the EU? It would be all well and good if it resulted in the reduction of global CO2, but it merely results in carbon leakage to other economies such as China and India, which are not constrained in the same way.

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct about the Labour Government's efforts with regard to Anglesey Aluminium. We made strenuous and laborious efforts over the summer to try to save those jobs as far as we possibly could, but unfortunately, for commercial reasons, the company was not able to accept the offer that was made to it. I must say that we remain committed to the aluminium industry generally in Wales and, of course, in the whole of the United Kingdom, but it is important to recognise that we operate within a European Union framework. Naturally, we are concerned about the environment and carbon emissions, and we are doing everything possible to work with our European partners to ensure that those emissions are kept to an absolute minimum. It is important to recognise also that European Union directives have an important role to play in sustaining this country's economy.

Albert Owen: A happy new year to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all Members.
	The decision by Rio Tinto Alcan to cease production at Anglesey Aluminium has left a massive hole in the regional economy of north-west Wales, but I put on the record my thanks to the Wales Office and, indeed, to the Government for their efforts with their generous offer and intervention to keep production going. Unfortunately, the company's internal matters took precedence.
	Looking forward to the future use of the land on the Anglesey Aluminium site and the concept of green energy, does the Minister agree that we need to move forward to ensure that those jobs are kept on Anglesey? Will he meet the First Minister to ensure that priority is given to Anglesey?

Wayne David: I also wish my hon. Friend a happy new year. I am sure that it will be a happy new year for Labour, too. The prospects for the island of Anglesey are rosy. For example, I welcome the decision by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to consider Wylfa as a potential site for new nuclear build, and obviously we are looking at various options to ensure that the available land on the Anglesey Aluminium site is used in the most productive way possible. I am aware that a very positive meeting occurred between representatives of a certain company, my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Wales, and I am sure that those deliberations will continue. I shall use my good offices to hold discussions with the First Minister as well.

David Jones: In 2007, when Lord Mandelson was European Trade Commissioner, he promoted a scheme for halving duty on the imports of aluminium to the EU. That was to the significant benefit of the Russian aluminium industry. To what extent does the Minister consider that that decision contributed to the demise of Anglesey Aluminium?

Wayne David: I do not believe that it was a factor in any way at all, because the aluminium industry throughout the world has faced difficulties. We are of the view that working closely with our European partners is entirely positive, and that is recognised by Rio Tinto, for example, which is an international player. Of course, discussions take place with the European Union, but it is important to recognise that we live in an international community, and the European Union is a big and positive player.

Car Scrappage

Betty Williams: What assessment he has made of progress on the car scrappage scheme in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Hain: Since its launch, the car scrappage scheme has generated more than 291,000 orders for new vehicles in the UK, with about 14,500 of those orders having been made in Wales.

Betty Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response, particularly as it confirms my own view. Does he agree that the car scrappage scheme has been of greater value to the British and, indeed, Welsh economies than would have been the Opposition's proposals to cut inheritance tax for their wealthy supporters?

Peter Hain: I could not have put it better myself; my hon. Friend has got it in one. Rather than wasting public sector money on the richest people in Britain, very few of them in Wales, with inheritance tax giveaways, our putting money into the car scrappage scheme has increased production by a fifth at Ford Bridgend and resulted in a fifth of all new car registrations throughout the UK. That is active government-government supporting people, not favouring a tiny, rich few.

Wind Farms (Montgomeryshire)

Lembit �pik: What assessment he has made of the potential effects of construction work on new wind farms in Montgomeryshire on the level of traffic and the environment in that area.

Wayne David: We firmly believe in the long-term benefits of wind energy. Any assessment of traffic and the environment would, of course, be a matter for the relevant planning authority.

Lembit �pik: Many in Welshpool, Cefn Coch and across Montgomeryshire are very worried about the thousands of slow-moving lorry loads required to build potentially 700-plus turbines, which will cause traffic gridlock. They are also concerned about the environmental impact of the turbines themselves. Will the Minister meet me to hear in more detail the concerns about the traffic flows and about the environmental impact of turbines, if they are built?

Wayne David: Of course wind energy is the most commercially viable renewable technology available, so it is important to go along and enhance its development whenever possible. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I was in Welshpool last year myself and saw the area that he talked about. We will continue to monitor the situation while recognising that responsibility lies with the Welsh Assembly Government, but I would be happy to have further discussions with the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues on this matter in future.

Economic Inactivity

Mark Harper: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the level of economic inactivity in Wales.[308873.]

Peter Hain: Because of the actions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Government have taken to preserve jobs and get people back to work, the level of economic inactivity in Wales fell by 3,000 from the last quarter. We will not let short-term job losses turn into long-term unemployment. We will not allow Welsh communities to be scarred by worklessness again.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for that answer. The Secretary of State recently said in the Welsh Grand Committee that unemployment in Wales may well keep rising for some time during 2010. Has he made any estimate of the level at which he thinks unemployment may peak during this recession?

Peter Hain: What has been interesting is that all the commentators are now saying that unemployment will peak at a far lower level than has been said by the Opposition and was previously feared. We have now seen economic activity rates in Wales down 3,000; jobseeker's allowance and claimant count figures down 500; vacancies up 2,000; and unemployment still up 93,000 in Wales on what we inherited from the miserable Conservative Government last time.

Ann Clwyd: My local authority of Cynon, Rhondda and Taff is particularly pleased with the future jobs fund and the impact it is having on employment in the Cynon valley. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government will continue to protect those who are out of work-unlike the Conservative party in the 1980s, which threw people on the scrapheap?

Peter Hain: Again, my Back-Bench colleagues are eloquent in their denunciation of failed policies on the other side of the House.

Michael Fabricant: They would be, wouldn't they?

Peter Hain: Well, they would be because they represent Welsh seats that were devastated by Tory policies in the 1980s and 1990s when the number of people on incapacity benefit in constituencies such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and mine tripled. It has been coming down under Labour. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have seen active Government intervention, spending and investing over the past two years-continuing into the future-rather than a Government who will slash spending and condemn people to losing jobs, bankrupting businesses, plunging Britain and Wales into exactly the same cycle of decline and depression from which we rescued Britain and Wales when we came to power in 1997.

Hywel Williams: In the Witney constituency of the Leader of the Opposition, 10 claimants are chasing every vacancy. In the Rhondda, 75 claimants are chasing every vacancy, while in Neath it is 35. Will the Secretary of State press his colleague in the Department for Work and Pensions to modulate the pressure on claimants to find work, reflecting local conditions such as those I mentioned? To do otherwise, I think, would be both impractical and inhumane.

Peter Hain: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and if he has any concrete examples, I would be happy to take them up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The hon. Gentleman will understand the imperative of encouraging people to stay in the world of work. If, sadly, people have been made unemployed, what we are doing, which was not done in the 1980s and 1990s, is to provide them with job opportunities, training and support so that when vacancies arise-there are more and more of them in the Welsh economy generally- they can take that opportunity locally. About half the claimants leave jobseeker's allowance within three months and more than 70 per cent. within six months-a far better record than in the miserable Tory 1980s and 1990s.

Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the growth in the manufacturing industry that was noted in the purchasing managers index survey published on Monday will be good news for Wales, bearing in mind our above-average dependency on manufacturing industry? Does he not think that that will help to bring down the level of economic inactivity?

Peter Hain: I do indeed. No one is suggesting that this recession has been anything other than extremely difficult for businesses and for those whose jobs have been under threat, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: the latest PMI index report shows that private sector growth in Wales increased in November for the seventh successive month. Manufacturing is up, and employment rose for the first time in two years. Wales was the only UK region to record job creation during November, and the latest figures show that the growth in exports from Wales since 1999 was greater than in all the rest of the UK put together. That is a good record under Labour.

Cheryl Gillan: Perhaps the Secretary of State will take off his rose-tinted glasses. Under Labour, more than 100,000 more people are economically inactive in Wales than the entire population of Cardiff. In the past year, the number of long-term unemployed has more than doubled. Welsh gross value added has gone backwards compared with the rest of the UK, and Wales is the poorest part of the country. What effect does the Secretary of State think that that is having on the social fabric of Wales?

Peter Hain: The difference between this, the deepest recession that Britain has faced in generations, and the much lighter recessions that the Tory Governments completely failed to deal with in the 1980s and 1990s in Wales is that people are now being helped out of difficulty and the economy is starting to recover. It is recovering much more quickly than people expected, and much more quickly than the doom merchants on the Conservative Benches who have been talking Wales down have been saying it would. That is because we have adopted active government policies to invest in jobs and support businesses, rather than turning our backs on businesses as was done in the Tory 1980s and 1990s.

Cheryl Gillan: I do not live in the 1980s; I live now. Given the importance of employment in agriculture, is the Secretary of State concerned that under Labour, gross value added per capita for Welsh agriculture has fallen by more than 68 per cent., or more than two thirds? This shocking decline is worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Is it not a fact that the legacy of Labour in Wales will be more unemployment, more poverty, more debt and a devastated rural economy?

Peter Hain: The problem is that hundreds of thousands of people in Wales had to live in the 1980s and 1990s under a Tory Government. That is why we are determined to prevent the Tories from inflicting such misery on them again. The hon. Lady does not acknowledge that there are now 93,000 more jobs in Wales than when we followed the Tories into power, despite this being the most difficult recession for 60 years. That is a record of Labour success against Tory failure.

Funding and Finance for Wales

Nia Griffith: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the operation of the Barnett formula in Wales.

Elfyn Llwyd: What assessment he has made of the recommendations of the Holtham commission on funding and finance for Wales; and when the Government plan to implement the recommendations that they accept.

Peter Hain: The Holtham report made it clear that, although funding is currently at a fair level, spending allotted to Wales could decline in relation to that of England. That is why I have fought hard for an historic new commitment from the Treasury on funding, to prevent the people of Wales from being disadvantaged in the future.

Nia Griffith: I fully recognise the autonomy of the Welsh Assembly Government in determining specific spending priorities. What can the Secretary of State tell me, following his discussions with Welsh Assembly Ministers, that will reassure my constituents about the overall level of funding available for public services in Wales?

Peter Hain: I remind my hon. Friend, the House and the people of Wales that the Welsh budget has more than doubled under Labour, going up from about £7 billion to nearly £16 billion next year. Again, that is a fantastic record compared with the Tory years. Spending on health services in Wales has more than doubled, for example, and there are now more nurses, more doctors and more health workers. That is a record of Labour's success that should reassure my hon. Friend, but we must protect Wales's budget in the future.

Elfyn Llwyd: Now that there is irrefutable evidence of the unfairness of the Barnett formula, the time is surely right for a new formula to be devised on the basis of need. The Secretary of State said that he had an understanding with the Treasury, but Ministers have always been able to argue for more money for their Departments. What we really need is a fair structure. Can we not work together to achieve that?

Peter Hain: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his modesty. Before Christmas, he told a media outlet that his favourite literary character is Superman. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy!
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am happy to work with him, because the issue is one for Wales as a whole. To his and his colleagues' credit, they have asked questions about the Barnett formula. The formula has worked fairly up to now, as the Holtham commission said, but we need to ensure that it works fairly in future. That is why the formula and the agreement I got with the Treasury for assessing the allocation to Wales under the comprehensive spending review have to be refined to protect Wales's future.

Alun Michael: Does my right hon. Friend accept that as well as moving to the fairest possible system for the allocation of finances, we must understand that the problem with formulae is always unpredictable year-on-year fluctuations? We have seen that in local government, police, health service and other formulae. Will he ensure that any new system makes sure that there is predictable income year on year, whatever the elements on which it is based?

Peter Hain: As always, my right hon. Friend makes a very telling point. This goes to the heart of the issue, which is that the Holtham report showed that although Wales had been treated more or less fairly, under seriously large increases in public spending we could see a convergence between Wales and the English average, which would disadvantage Wales against those areas of England that are most comparable with it, particularly the north-east. That is why we needed a new approach that underpinned the Barnett formula with an assessment that ensures every time that Wales is not disadvantaged-it puts a floor, as it were, under convergence-which is what I have achieved.

Road Accidents

Andrew Pelling: How many road traffic accidents there were in Wales in the latest period for which figures are available.

Wayne David: The number of people killed or seriously injured in 2008 was 1,395, which is 31 per cent. lower than the average in the period 1994 to 1998. In 2008, 7,783 road accidents involving personal injury were reported in Wales. We are taking steps to reduce road traffic accidents still further.  Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. The House must come to order, and I know that it will want to listen to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling).

Andrew Pelling: The debacle last winter of clearing the roads of snow and ice is perhaps being repeated this winter, with the roads up the valleys in south Wales being closed. Is it safe for my constituents from Croydon, Central, some of whom are Welsh and want to visit relatives, to visit Wales at this time?

Wayne David: The Government in all parts of the United Kingdom are taking drastic action to ensure the greatest free movement of traffic possible. As far as the Welsh Assembly Government are concerned, an announcement has been made that stocks are held for motorways. They are ensuring that stocks that are available for motorways are, if necessary, being made available for local authorities to help with other roads in Wales.

Si�n James: The travel conditions in the snow at the moment are important and we all appreciate the difficulties. However, going back to serious measures that deal with road traffic accidents in Wales, I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating the Welsh Assembly Government on their initiative to reduce speeds outside schools to 20 mph. That is a really important initiative that helps to save lives.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The Welsh Assembly Government and police forces are working together in Wales on a number of initiatives to improve safety generally, and the one she cites is a very good example. Action is being taken outside a number of schools in Wales to ensure that there is the smallest possible chance of accidents, and it is proving to be extremely effective.

Roger Williams: Statistics show that more than one third of all road traffic accidents in Wales in 2008, including 52 deaths and 372 serious injuries, involved young people between the ages of 16 and 25. Many of those accidents could be prevented by better training for young and newly qualified drivers. With that in mind, will the Under-Secretary meet me, other like-minded Members of Parliament and academics from Cardiff university who are involved in those issues, to see whether we can find ways to ensure that newly qualified young drivers can drive more safely, and thus reduce the tragic number of lost young lives?

Wayne David: The Government are making good progress on reducing fatalities and serious injuries. A 40 per cent. reduction target has been set and we are making good progress towards achieving it. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to focus on young people, and the Government are doing that. I would be happy to have further discussions with him to see how that can be taken forward.

Future Jobs Fund

Dai Havard: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the progress of the future jobs fund in Wales.

Peter Hain: The £1 billion future jobs fund is already creating 4,300 jobs where they are needed most in Wales, including through the successful Merthyr Tydfil borough council bid, which alone will create more than 700 jobs in Merthyr and the nearby communities, helping many of my hon. Friend's young constituents to find jobs.

Dai Havard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which is in stark contrast to the abandonment of young people in the valleys by the Tories in previous recessions. What discussions will he have about economic regeneration and training opportunities to consolidate those that are available, so that the future jobs fund becomes an opportunity for future employment?

Peter Hain: I applaud my hon. Friend's diligent application in supporting his constituents and his expert knowledge of the schemes. I am happy to continue to explore ways in which we can take them forward-they matter so much to Merthyr and areas such as my constituency. I agree with my hon. Friend: I do not understand how the Leader of the Opposition can want to stop the future jobs fund and prevent funding from coming in to support young people, thus condemning them to the misery and unemployment that they suffered in the 1980s and 1990s under a Tory Government. That would be repeated if the right hon. Gentleman got power.

Mark Williams: Despite the benefits of the future jobs fund-I pay tribute to it for the jobs that have been created in my constituency-45 per cent. of those unemployed are under 25. Does the Secretary of State share the concerns of the Prince's Trust about opportunities for young entrepreneurs to create businesses and jobs for the future?

Peter Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, one of the future jobs fund schemes is in Ceredigion. The Prince's Trust does fantastic work in Wales and elsewhere, and we should support its efforts to encourage young entrepreneurs to get themselves out of the crisis. That said, because of active Labour Government investment and the policies that we have pursued, youth unemployment is a third lower than it was in the early 1990s under the Tories.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is still far too much noise in the Chamber. It is unfair to hon. Members asking questions and, indeed, to Ministers answering them.

Youth Employment

John Robertson: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on assisting young people into employment; and if he will make a statement.

Wayne David: We know that young people in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom have been hit particularly hard by the recession. That is why we quickly introduced measures such as the young person's guarantee and the future jobs fund-to help them to find work as quickly as possible.

John Robertson: Further to the questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard), my hon. Friend knows that when larger employers close, it has the social effect of well-paid jobs and apprenticeships being lost. What is he doing to ensure that well-paid jobs and apprenticeships are maintained in affected areas?

Wayne David: It is important to remember that some 54,000 young people have been helped into work in Wales through a new deal for young people and £1 billion has been set aside in the future jobs fund. Those schemes are creating real jobs for young people the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, including Wales. I find it strange that Opposition Members opposed both initiatives. We are adamant that the mistakes of the past in the 1980s and 1990s will not be repeated. We will not stand aside and allow our young people to be lost from work for a whole generation.

Stephen Crabb: But is it not the truth that this Government's approach to youth unemployment has been characterised by massive complacency and a failure to engage with the issue? When the Minister and the Secretary of State met for their friendly pint with the new First Minister last night, what practical steps did they agree on to rescue Wales's lost generation of young people-the tens of thousands of youngsters doing nothing constructive with their lives?

Wayne David: The most important thing to realise is that we will not repeat the mistakes of the Tory past. That is the lesson that we have learned here at Westminster, and that the Welsh Assembly Government in Cardiff are learning as well. We are working together in a spirit of partnership to make sure that as many people as possible are put back into work as soon as possible, and our progress is there for all to see. If the Tory policies were implemented, there would be far more unemployed people in Wales than there currently are.

Chris Ruane: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Rhyl city strategy team on its successful bid for the future jobs fund, which will put 320 young people back to work in my constituency over the next six months?

Wayne David: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent work he has been doing. What is happening in Rhyl is a good example of what can be achieved through proactive government at local authority level, Welsh Assembly level and here at Westminster as well. It is an excellent example of what can be achieved when we all work together and we do not stand to one side. It is worth remembering, too, that unemployment in Wales is still 30 per cent. lower than at the height of the early '90s; we will not forget that.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

Brian H Donohoe: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 January.

Gordon Brown: Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan since we last met. They are: from 33 Engineer Regiment, explosive ordnance disposal, Sapper David Watson; from 2nd Battalion the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, Corporal Simon Hornby; from 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, Private Robert Hayes; from the Parachute Regiment, Lance Corporal Tommy Brown; from 3rd Battalion The Rifles, Lance Corporal Christopher Roney and Rifleman Aidan Howell; and from 4th Regiment Royal Military Police, Lance Corporal Michael Pritchard. Our thoughts are with their families and friends, who can be rightly proud of the courage, dedication, bravery and sacrifice shown by these men. That sacrifice will never be forgotten. We have been reminded once again since the House last met that there are those who seek to harm us through terrorist incidents. We must remain vigilant and ever grateful to all those serving in Afghanistan and around the world working for the safety of the British people.
	I know that the House will also want to join me in sending our condolences to the wife and children of David Taylor who, sadly, died on Boxing day. He was a tremendous constituency Member of Parliament who thoroughly deserved the accolade of Back Bencher of the Year for his tireless work for the people of North-West Leicestershire. He will be greatly missed, not only by his family, who are here in the House today, but by colleagues in Westminster and all his constituents.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Brian H Donohoe: I would of course endorse all that my right hon. Friend says about those who have made the sacrifice of dying for their country while fighting in Afghanistan. I also want to say something about those in the west of Scotland who have died as a result of taking heroin, all harvested in Afghanistan, and to pay tribute to my hon. Friend and comrade, David Taylor, who served in this House assiduously and gave his all in his constituency as well.
	If I may turn to the question, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister give us an update on the situation in respect of the terrorist incident that took place on the plane travelling from Schiphol in Amsterdam to Detroit?

Gordon Brown: The whole House will echo what my hon. Friend says about the damage done in our country by drugs that come from Afghanistan, and I would be very happy to meet him to talk about those issues.
	Since the Christmas day incident in Detroit, we have, as the Home Secretary reported to the House yesterday, taken a number of actions in key areas. In aviation security, the first of a new generation of full-body scanners will be in operation at Heathrow within a few weeks, and then, over time, in airports across the United Kingdom. Although the person who was involved in the Detroit incident was refused a visa and was on our watch list, we are nevertheless reviewing and enhancing our watch list arrangements, and given the changing nature of security, I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to ensure that any lessons that can be learned from recent events are considered and to examine whether we can further co-ordinate and integrate the work of the intelligence services and better make that work available to us.

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the seven British servicemen who have lost their lives since the last Prime Minister's questions? They were: Private Robert Hayes, Sapper David Watson, Rifleman Aidan Howell, Lance Corporal Tommy Brown, Lance Corporal Christopher Roney, Lance Corporal Michael Pritchard and Corporal Simon Hornby. They died serving our country, and we must always honour their memory and look after their families.
	I also join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to David Taylor and his contribution to public service. We, too, send our condolences to his wife and children. He was diligent, decent and determined. As one obituary brilliantly put it, he
	was that rare thing among politicians: someone who was liked and admired equally by his constituents, his parliamentary colleagues and his political opponents.
	He will be sadly missed.
	This year the Government will have to borrow £178 billion. Yesterday, one of the largest holders of Government debt warned that British debt is likely to be downgraded. The OECD, the CBI and the Bank of England have all warned that there is no proper plan to deal with the deficit. Why does the Prime Minister think that all those people take that view?

Gordon Brown: First of all, let us put this in context. The debt of every country has risen as a result of the global financial recession, and debt in Britain is actually lower as a percentage of national income than that of America, lower than in France and Germany, lower than in Italy and Japan, and lower than the average for the euro area. So every country faces the difficulty of taking itself out of recession while having to develop a deficit reduction plan. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we will not stop the fiscal stimulus before we are out of recession, and we will not take his advice and leave the economy without the necessary support. If we had taken his advice, many thousands more would be unemployed and many thousands of businesses would be lost.
	We have published a deficit reduction plan- [Interruption.] Yes, it includes raising the top rate of tax. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman now supports that. It raises national insurance so that we can fund our health and public services. I assume that he has to consider that as well. It does not include cutting inheritance tax-costing £1.5 billion-for the 3,000 richest families in the country. It includes cuts in some of the major Departments, but it includes defending the front-line services of health, education and policing. He asks me about public spending this week after he said that it was the year of change-he changed his policy in the morning, he changed his policy in the afternoon and he changed his policy in the evening.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister talks about the context. The context is the biggest budget deficit of any advanced economy in the world. Let us be clear about what these people say about the Government's plans. The CBI says that the Government's plans are too little too late. The Governor of the Bank of England says that
	there is not a credible plan.
	The OECD says that
	more ambitious plans...would strengthen the recovery.
	Howard Davies, the man whom the Prime Minister appointed as the head of the Financial Services Authority, said that
	the loss of confidence in the Government's ability to get the public finances back under control
	is
	The major risk
	facing this country. And he said that after the utterly feeble pre-Budget report. So let me ask the Prime Minister again: why does he think that all those people think that his plans are so feeble?

Gordon Brown: The Governor of the Bank of England said:
	The very significant policy actions taken in recent months will...stimulate a recovery in demand, output and employment.
	The IMF said that the UK
	has shown a lot of leadership-
	 [Interruption.] That was the managing director of the IMF. It also said:
	The UK authorities' policy response to the deep recession...has been bold and wide ranging...The aggressive actions by the authorities have been successful in containing the crisis and averting a systemic breakdown.
	I could go through the others. The OECD said that the fiscal stimulus has cushioned the downturn.
	It comes down to this: if we had taken the right hon. Gentleman's advice, there would have been no action and unemployment would have risen much faster. If we had taken his advice, the 200,000 small businesses that have benefited would not have done so. If we had taken his advice, we would be back to the '90s mortgage misery with repossessions. The Conservative party got wrong every decision on the recession and the recovery.

David Cameron: The fact is that the Chancellor is now taking our advice. He said that we can get growth only when we deal with the deficit. The Prime Minister tells us about his Fiscal Responsibility Bill, but it is completely feeble. What is required is not an Act of Parliament, but an act of political will-an act of courage. The man whom the Prime Minister appointed to the Bank of England said this about fiscal responsibility Acts. They are, he said,
	acts...of the fiscally irresponsible to con the public.
	Is not the reason for the lack of faith in the Government's plans that the Prime Minister is so personally incapable of admitting what everyone knows to be true: that there is a need for cuts to be made? On Sunday, he said that public spending will rise by 0.8 per cent. in real terms each year. Given that everybody knows that cuts in departmental spending are necessary, was that not just completely disingenuous?

Gordon Brown: The person who was misleading the public was the right hon. Gentleman on Monday, about a married couples allowance. He said one thing on Monday morning, something different on Monday afternoon and something different on Monday evening, and then the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who floated the policy, the former leader of the Conservative party, said that he had a private assurance of £4.9 billion being spent. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reduce the deficit, presumably he does not want to spend £4.9 billion on a married couples allowance. If he wishes to reduce the deficit, presumably he will go ahead with the national insurance tax rise that we are proposing. If he wishes to reduce the deficit, he will not go ahead with his inheritance tax proposal, which he now says is his only pledge. We are reducing the deficit with a plan that includes tax rises, departmental cuts and protecting front-line services. The Conservatives would be cutting education services, police services and the main services in the country. Their policies are a change-a change back to the economics of the 1980s.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I just say to Members on both sides that we are not on the hustings now?

David Cameron: I wish we were. I wish this Prime Minister had the courage to call the election so we could get on with it. I have to say, what a lot of desperate rubbish from the Prime Minister. I thought that he might mention marriage, so let me say this to him. The difference between me and the Prime Minister is this: when I lean across and say, I love you, darling, I really mean it. The only divorce that has taken place is between this Prime Minister and reality. Let us take his claim that spending is going up by 0.8 per cent. Is not the only way that he can make that claim by excluding capital spending, which he is actually cutting in half? Is that not completely disingenuous?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman talks about love and marriage, when he is the person who cannot give a straight answer on the married couples allowance: he cannot say, I do, or I don't, when it comes to the married couples allowance. As for the public, will he give us a straight answer now? Does his deficit reduction plan include £4.9 billion to be spent on the married couples allowance, £1.5 billion to be spent on inheritance tax and not going ahead with the national insurance rise? That is why everybody says that there is a £34 billion gap in his proposals. He cannot go round the country promising everything to everyone. He has got to face up to the facts: his policies are fit only for opposition, not for government.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants to turn this around and make it Prime Minister's questions, he should get on and call the election. Then there would be all the time in the world to kiss and make up.
	The fact is that this Government are now deeply divided. Everyone knows that the Chancellor wanted to reduce the deficit more quickly. Everyone knows that the Business Secretary goes around the country privately attacking the PBR as a complete failure. Perhaps the Prime Minister could name one Back Bencher on the Labour side who stood up and spoke for his Fiscal Responsibility Bill last night. Not a single one. Does he not understand that a divided party without a proper plan is putting Britain's recovery at risk? Is that not the height of irresponsibility, and why is he always incapable of doing the right thing?

Gordon Brown: Let me just give another example for the right hon. Gentleman. Last night he was asked, Are you committed to education maintenance allowances? What was his answer?
	Let's just say I'm not uncommitted to it.
	He then said:
	Well, we're in a state of quite severe flux on this whole area...so I can't give you a straight answer.
	Is this an Opposition party ready for government? It should go back to the drawing board and think again.

David Cameron: The fact is that the appalling state of the public finances and the Prime Minister's complete inability to have a proper plan show the great truth of British politics. He has had two years to demonstrate some leadership, and he has completely failed to do so. He cannot convince business or the financial markets, and he cannot even convince his own Chancellor. Is it any wonder that he ekes out his time as an unelected leader completely incapable of convincing the country?

Gordon Brown: He is going to have to do better than that. He is going to have answer some questions on policy some time. He got it wrong on the nationalisation of Northern Rock, he got it wrong on the fiscal stimulus for the recovery, he got it wrong on helping the unemployed, he got it wrong on helping home owners, he got it wrong on small businesses. He got every issue of the recession wrong. Nobody will trust him, not just on married couples allowance but on the economy at all.

Karen Buck: A year on from the devastating conflict in Gaza, which left 1,400 Palestinians dead, the siege continues. Humanitarian relief is hard to come by, and Gaza lies shattered. Although there were undoubtedly war crimes on both sides, does my right hon. Friend agree that what is now happening is the collective punishment of 1 million people? Will he now make urgent representations to ease the siege on Gaza as a critical step towards a peace settlement in that region?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she speaks for many people. We must not forget the people of Gaza. I have raised with Prime Minister Netanyahu the speed at which aid and humanitarian assistance can get into Gaza, and we are pressing the Israeli Government to do more to get more aid in. I will look at exactly the points that my hon. Friend has made and see what more we can do in this new year. In the end, this will require a political settlement between Israel and the Palestinian state that gives Israel security and Palestine a viable economic state that it can manage. In the meantime, we must avoid unnecessary suffering.

Nicholas Clegg: I also add my own expressions of profound sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of the brave British soldiers who have lost their lives serving in Afghanistan since the House last sat: Corporal Simon Hornby, Lance Corporal Michael Pritchard, Lance Corporal Christopher Roney, Lance Corporal Tommy Brown, Rifleman Aidan Howell, Sapper David Watson and Private Robert Hayes.
	I would also like to pay my own tribute to David Taylor, who sadly died during the Christmas recess. I was once one of the MEPs for his area, and he had a reputation then-and always has had-as an outstanding constituency MP and someone who always spoke his own mind. My heart goes out to his wife Pam and his four daughters.
	Last weekend, the Prime Minister said that he was all in favour of aspiration. Could he explain to us exactly what is aspirational about a tax system that he has created in which the poorest 20 per cent. pay more from their income in tax than the richest 20 per cent.?

Gordon Brown: It was because of all these things that we introduced the tax credit system, which is the means by which we take people out of poverty. We reward work for people who are in work, and for people who pay income tax it removes their liability by giving them tax credits instead. It is the means by which we bring greater justice, take people out of poverty and make work pay, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to support the tax credit system, which is an essential part of our tax and benefits system in this country.

Nicholas Clegg: The Prime Minister talks about justice. He has not delivered justice or fairness in the tax system. He is the one who scrapped the 10p tax rate. It is his rules that allow a City banker to pay less tax on capital gains than a cleaner pays on wages. He is about to hit millions of average earners with higher national insurance bills. Where is the fairness, where is the aspiration, in any of that?

Gordon Brown: The aspiration is helping people into jobs, giving people the chance to earn a decent living, and ensuring that the tax system is fair.
	Presumably the hon. Gentleman will now support our 50 per cent. tax on the bonuses of the banks. Presumably he will support the raising of the top rate of tax to 50 per cent. Presumably he will support the removal of pension tax reliefs, which we are carrying out as very much part of the deficit reduction plan. What we have tried to do is ensure that in these difficult times, as we make changes, the burden is shared fairly, which means that those with the broadest shoulders must pay more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.

Joan Walley: I wish to pay my personal tribute to David Taylor.My I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my concern about apprentices aged over 26 at Stoke on Trent college, which is conducting urgent talks with the aim of securing the funds that are needed for them to continue their training? In the light of the recent National Audit Office report on former coal mining areas, will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to do all that he can to ensure that the Learning and Skills Council, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the regional development agency, and the Department for Work and Pensions work closely with the college to find a solution, so that all apprentices can receive full funding?

Gordon Brown: It is our intention, even in these difficult times when companies may not be in a position to keep apprentices on, to find alternative sources of employment for them and ensure that the colleges can continue to train them. However, I will examine the specific issue that my hon. Friend has raised. As for the coalfields regeneration programme, the National Audit Office's recommendations have been acted on, and funds from the programme have already been allocated. Stoke-on-Trent has received £3 million, more than half a million pounds of which has been committed to projects that will provide training for individuals.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will find some of the answers to her questions in the decisions that have already been made, but I will look into the apprentices question. In 1997 there were 70,000 apprentices, and there are now a quarter of a million. No Government have done more to revive the apprenticeship, and we will not allow the number of apprenticeships to fall during this recession.

Andrew Pelling: Given that 29 per cent. of jobs in Croydon are in the public sector, I am very worried about Government plans to move public sector jobs out of the south-east. In response to a question in the House, the Chancellor kindly said that there might be compensatory steps. Has the Prime Minister any positive views on what those compensatory steps might be?

Gordon Brown: I know that the immigration department in Croydon is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Obviously, we are looking into how we can reallocate some jobs that are currently in the south-east in a way that will both save money and spread employment across the country. The Lyons review suggested that 20,000 jobs be reallocated. That has already happened, and we are considering what more we can do. However, I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the work of the London Development Agency and the work that is done in London are a means by which we ensure that jobs are created in London. We are always thinking about what we can do to create more jobs in this capital city.

Andrew Dismore: Cancer treatment waits have been effectively eliminated for my constituents because our NHS doctors and nurses have met exacting cancer care targets. Today, Macmillan Cancer Support reported that because more people are surviving cancer-which is excellent news-they are more prone to health problems when their treatment ends, and need practical advice. What can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that they receive that advice and help?

Gordon Brown: The Macmillan work is something that is very special in our country, and very much appreciated. I believe that because of the advances that we are making in cancer care-particularly if cancer is detected early and people are able to go through the screening process-many lives that would otherwise be lost are being saved.
	I appreciate that considerable aftercare is necessary even after many years, and I am determined that we will continue to support it. However, I believe that the best way in which we can help to deal with the cancer problems in our country is to ensure that we do not lose the two-week guarantee that patients can see a specialist immediately, and that we move towards a guarantee that they will be diagnosed and given the answers within only seven days. That requires money, and it requires determination to spend the money in the right place. We are determined to do that, and I hope that no party seeks to abolish it.

Ben Wallace: Given that technology is vital in allowing us to stay one step ahead of the terrorist threat, why have the Government cut spending on defence research by 23 per cent. over the past three years? Is not grasping at a couple of scanners and yet another review a case of too little, too late?

Gordon Brown: We have increased spending on security from £1 billion in 2001 to more than £3 billion, and we have increased counter-terrorism capability massively in this country as a result of making the right decisions. We have doubled the number of security staff, we have doubled the number of police who are associated with counter-terrorism work, and we are introducing the e-borders system, which is a means by which we can catch those people who are coming into this country. I do not think that any Government have done more to increase the counter-terrorism capability in this country, and that is right, because our first duty is the security of our citizens.

Nia Griffith: Given the somewhat disappointing finish to the Copenhagen conference, what action will my right hon. Friend be taking in order to keep up the momentum on this absolutely vital task of tackling climate change?

Gordon Brown: For the first time, the world was able to agree that we should not have a climate change policy that did not address the problems of rising temperatures, and the 2 per cent. limit was agreed by all countries. We also have agreement that countries will notify what they will do by 2020, and they have got to do so by 31 January. We are obviously pressing for countries to be in a position where they can reduce the amount of gigatonnes in carbon and greenhouse gas emissions from about the mid-50s in 2020 to the mid-40s. There has been greater transparency achieved, with every country agreeing to report what it is doing, but we have not yet got the international treaty that we need, and we have not yet got the announcement from all countries that they support the 50 per cent. reduction by 2050. That is work that is still to be done. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must now talk to all those countries that were reluctant to come into these talks with a view to getting a treaty to persuade them that a treaty is necessary. I think that she will see further announcements in the next few days about what we are going to do.

Ann Winterton: Bearing in mind the failure of Copenhagen and the current weather cycle, which clearly indicates a cooling trend- [ Laughter. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The more noise, the less progress we make. I want to reach other Back Benchers.

Ann Winterton: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the proposed wasteful expenditure of £100 billion on offshore wind farms, which will be incapable of delivering sufficient energy but will result in excessively exorbitant charges for electricity users?

Gordon Brown: The idea that the Conservative party could take a lead on climate change when they cannot even convince their own Back Benchers of what is necessary- [ Laughter. ] The Conservatives cannot make up their minds about nuclear. We are now the leading power in the world for offshore wind. We will soon be making announcements that will make it clear that massive numbers of jobs will come as a result of offshore wind. That is the right policy if we are going to have 15 per cent. renewables by 2020. I cannot understand where the Conservatives' energy policy comes from. If they take out nuclear and they take out offshore wind-and every Conservative local authority is opposing onshore wind as well-they have no policy whatsoever.

David Anderson: It is now 27 months since people suffering from pleural plaques were denied compensation by the House of Lords. Can I ask the Prime Minister what work is being done across the whole of Government to redress this, and when we can expect some progress?

Gordon Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, a meeting of legal advisers took place in the past few weeks. I am meeting a group of MPs-I think he is part of it-in the next week. I hope to get a resolution to what is a very dreadful disease-asbestosis-and what we can do about it, and also to deal with the problem that arises from pleural plaques.

Michael Spicer: Now that we face stagflation, what is the Prime Minister going to do about it?

Gordon Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we are going to have the levels of inflation that we had in the Conservative years, he is completely wrong. Inflation is low in this country; we have kept it low for the past 12 years. The idea that the Conservative party is now going to run a campaign saying that our inflation is going to be the highest in the world is something quite ridiculous.

Alison Seabeck: Given the cold weather, yesterday's announcement of the boiler scrappage scheme is particularly welcome to the fuel-poor in my constituency and positively welcomed by companies such as Zenex which are at the cutting edge of such technology. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will not only promote that excellent scheme but encourage retrofitting, which companies such as Zenex can do, and do well, to reduce our carbon footprint?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The boiler scrappage scheme will help 125,000 households and is already showing that it is popular and will cut carbon emissions. Retrofitting measures such as insulation will play an increasingly important role.
	I must also draw people's attention to the fact that cold weather payments are being made to people who are affected by the cold weather right across the country-in many areas, including London, from 4 January. Some 6.9 million payments of £25 a week have already been made. We are doing our best to help people through the difficult winter weather, and we will continue to do what we can to ensure that elderly people in particular will turn up their heating and not allow themselves to suffer from the cold.

Maria Miller: Given that the severe weather, which has hit my constituency badly, is predicted to continue for the next five days, what action are the Government taking now to make sure that supplies of salt and grit-including the stockpiles held by the Highways Agency-get to where they are needed most?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I think the whole House wants to be assured that, in this difficult period of weather when some areas are more hit than others, those areas that need to grit roads will have the salt necessary to do so, and all the support that other local authorities that are not so affected, and central Government, can give them. I assure the hon. Lady that salt supplies have been built up as a result of what we discovered and did last year. At the same time, I can announce that there will be greater co-ordination of the distribution of salt, so that those areas that need that salt will not be denied it. I hope that I will be able to reassure her constituents that they will get the salt and the grit that are necessary.

House of Commons Reform

Graham Allen: What recent representations he has received on bringing forward proposals arising from the report of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons.

Gordon Brown: The Leader of the House has written to representatives of the other parties on this issue. The Government are keen to proceed on a consensual basis.

Graham Allen: UK politics has become ever more the private playground of Governments and the media, and this place, Parliament, an ever more tatty backdrop, with little independence. Will the Prime Minister take the powers that he has to bring forward to our agenda-not for debate, but for decision-the proposals to reform this House? Will he please do that in the next few weeks?

Gordon Brown: It is in all our interests to say that both the standard of debate in this House and what is discussed in this House should reflect the views and values of the people of this whole country. All of us want in this new year to make sure that the House is discussing the issues that matter to people.
	We welcome the Select Committee report. I know that my hon. Friend has taken a long-standing interest in these institutional reforms. The creation of a Back-Bench committee, a business committee and party ballots-all these are being looked at in detail. The Leader of the House has made it clear that we will have an opportunity to debate them in due course and to discuss the recommendations.

David Heath: In due course? We have been waiting for weeks. Is that not typical of this Government and this Prime Minister? He made a big announcement on 10 June last year that we were to have urgent reform of the House of Commons, but when it comes to action the Government act with all the dispatch of a particularly arthritic slug on its way to its own funeral. Will he tell us whether he is still committed to urgent action on reforming this ineffective and incompetent House, or are there people on his own Benches who are stopping that from happening?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman gives me a great deal of hope that the consensual approach will work! I think that he is part of the talks. The talks are taking place. The issues about the creation of a business committee, party ballots for Select Committee membership and ballots of the whole House for Select Committee chairmanship were recommended by the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). We are now discussing these issues, and they will form the subject of a debate and decisions by this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so both quickly and quietly so that we can proceed with our business.

BILLS PRESENTED

Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (No.2)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Andrew Dismore, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Clive Efford, Mr. David Anderson, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mike Gapes, Rob Marris, Siobhan McDonagh, Jim Sheridan, Shona McIsaac, Mr. Chris Mullin and Judy Mallaber, presented a Bill to provide that certain asbestos-related conditions are actionable personal injuries; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February, and to be printed (Bill 34).

Employers' Liability Insurance Bureau

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Andrew Dismore, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Clive Efford, John Austin, Mike Gapes, Rob Marris, Siobhan McDonagh, Jim Sheridan, Shona McIsaac, Mr. Chris Mullin and Judy Mallaber presented a Bill to make provision for the creation of an employers' liability insurance bureau comprising an electronic database and a fund of last resort; to make provision about employers' liability insurance; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February, and to be printed (Bill 35).

Land Use (Gardens Protection Etc)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Andrew Dismore, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Clive Efford, John Austin, Shona McIsaac, Rob Marris, Mr. Virendra Sharma, Siobhan McDonagh and Mr. Chris Mullin, presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of gardens and urban green spaces; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February, and to be printed (Bill 36).

British Museum Act 1963 (Amendment)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Andrew Dismore, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Clive Efford, John Austin, Mr. Edward O'Hara and Rob Marris, presented a Bill to amend the British Museum Act 1963 to permit the transfer of artefacts in the British Museum; to confer powers on the Secretary of State to require the transfer of artefacts in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February, and to be printed (Bill 37).

Sheltered Accommodation (Residents)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Andrew Dismore, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Judy Mallaber, Mike Gapes, Rob Marris, Mr. Virendra Sharma, Mr. Edward Timpson, John Austin and Shona McIsaac, presented a Bill to make provision for residents in sheltered accommodation to challenge certain local authority budget decisions which affect them; to ensure that funding provided by central government to local authorities for sheltered accommodation warden services is not allocated to other services; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March, and to be printed (Bill 38).

Human Rights Act 1998 (Meaning of Public Authority)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Andrew Dismore, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Clive Efford, John Austin, Mike Gapes, Rob Marris, Mr. Virendra Sharma, Shona McIsaac, Mr. Chris Mullin and Judy Mallaber presented a Bill to clarify the meaning of 'public authority' in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March, and to be printed (Bill 39).

Illegally Logged Timber (Prohibition of Sale)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Andrew Dismore, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Clive Efford, John Austin, Mike Gapes, Rob Marris, Mr. Chris Mullin, Judy Mallaber and Barry Gardiner, presented a Bill to prohibit the sale in the United Kingdom of timber and wood products that were obtained or produced illegally in their country of origin; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed (Bill 40).

Torture (Damages)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Andrew Dismore, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Clive Efford, John Austin, Rob Marris, Siobhan McDonagh and Mr. Chris Mullin, presented a Bill to make provision for actions for damages for torture; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed (Bill 41).

Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Andrew Dismore, supported by Ms Karen Buck, Clive Efford, John Austin and Rob Marris, presented a Bill to introduce a national day to learn about and remember the Armenian genocide.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 April, and to be printed (Bill 42).

Point of Order

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have heard the rather dramatic news just now that a former Secretary of State for Defence and a former Secretary of State for Health have called for an immediate ballot on the leadership of the Labour party and the future of the Prime Minister. Do you consider that this might affect the order of the business for the rest of the day?

Mr. Speaker: The short answer is no. If memory serves me correctly, the hon. Gentleman will fairly soon be marking 18 years in the House of Commons as the Member for Lichfield, and I therefore feel sure that he knows as well as I know that that was not a point of order.

Video Recordings Bill (Allocation of Time)

Si�n Simon: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Video Recordings Bill-
	 Timetable 
	1. Proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.
	 Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put 
	2. When the Bill has been read a second time-
	(a) it shall (despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order)) stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
	(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3.-(1) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
	(2) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1, the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)-
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments 
	6.-(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	7.-(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith-
	(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith-
	(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has-
	(a) agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment; or
	(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	 Subsequent stages 
	8.-(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	9.-(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	 Reasons Committee 
	10.-(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), the Chairman shall-
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	 Miscellaneous 
	11. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	12.-(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
	13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	14.-(1) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	15.-(1) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
	(2) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	16. The Speaker may not arrange for a debate to be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today's sitting before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	17.-(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(2) No notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	18. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	19.-(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at 7 pm, 4 pm or 3 pm (as the case may be) on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
	(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before the moment of interruption for a period equal to the time elapsing between 7 pm, 4 pm or 3 pm (as the case may be) and the conclusion of those proceedings.
	This is a short Bill designed to repeal and revise the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984, including the offences under the Act. The offences were made unenforceable because of a failure to notify the offences and other provisions of the 1984 Act in draft to the European Commission in accordance with the technical standards directive.
	Until the Video Recordings Act is repealed and revived, no new prosecutions can be made under the Act. This means that publishers of video games and DVDs can distribute their goods free of classification requirements, and retailers can sell or supply adult material, including explicit pornography.

Keith Vaz: This matter was discovered some weeks ago. Have the Government caused an investigation to be held to find out why the European Commission was not informed about the draft?

Si�n Simon: The failure to notify the draft was in 1984, under the previous Conservative Administration, about whom I do not want to make cheap political points today. None of the Ministers or officials serving at the time is still in post. It was an unfortunate oversight, and we believe it to have been an isolated incident. What is important now is to rectify the situation, so that the current anomalous loophole, whereby inappropriate material can be sold to children without classification, is closed as soon as possible.

Lembit �pik: The Minister accepts that it was down to a previous Administration. The practical cost to the House is an afternoon's business. He said that it was an isolated incident. Is he satisfied that it will not happen again, and that we will not waste hundreds of person-hours of this Chamber's time making the same mistake?

Si�n Simon: The Cabinet Office is looking to see whether this kind of thing might have happened on other occasions and, as far as we are aware, this is an isolated incident. As I say, the important thing is for the loophole to be swiftly closed today in this House, so that the protections that have been afforded to the public for 25 years by a very successful piece of legislation introduced under the previous Administration are enforceable once again-they have not been enforceable since August, when this oversight was discovered. I am sure that the House will agree that there is an urgent need for the legal protections to be reinstated.

Philip Davies: The Minister says that there is a loophole and he talks about trying to make the law enforceable. According to the House of Commons Library, there were 81 successful prosecutions for offences under the Act in 2006 and 139 in 2002. Is he saying that those prosecutions were not valid at the time? Would they-

Mr. Speaker: Order. It pains me greatly to interrupt the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) but, as always, I am trying to be helpful. I listened with great interest to what he said, but I would not want the Minister to be diverted from the path of righteousness, and what has just been said over the past couple of minutes bears very little relation, if any, to the allocation of time motion.

Si�n Simon: I shall take your guidance, Mr. Speaker; I would be happy to discuss that matter with the hon. Gentleman later in our proceedings, but it behoves me to take the guidance from the Chair. May I say-this is in response to the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am attempting to keep my remarks to the motion-that this is the first use of the fast-track procedure, as recently recommended by the relevant House of Lords Select Committee? We are dealing with what used to be called an emergency piece of legislation. This Bill does not change, in any way, the existing 1984 Act; it simply repeals and then revives it quickly in two short clauses, in order to make the existing Act enforceable, which is why we are seeking to deal with this quickly today with the minimum of delay.

Edward Vaizey: We agree.

David Heath: I do not wish to disagree with the motion, but I want to make a point on procedure. It is not good procedure for this House to proceed with Bills in a single day unless there are overwhelming reasons to do so. Such reasons are sometimes associated with national security and sometimes with urgent circumstances outside the House. There is a reason for our procedures in this House and a reason why we have a delay between Second Reading, Committee and Report: to enable matters to be properly considered in order and to ensure not only that Members who wish to contribute to the debate can do so, but that those outside the House are able to make observations on the Bill as it proceeds. I have no doubt that this is a simple tidying-up provision, and there is every indication that it will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It could therefore have been dealt with simply over the normal time period and in two chunks to enable us to maintain the principles of parliamentary procedure; I do not entirely understand why it should be dealt with in a single day. That is an exceptional way of doing business and there does not seem to be the exceptional need for such an approach on this occasion. We had several days prior to the Christmas recess when we could easily have slipped in the Bill's Second Reading and then proceeded in the normal way. Perhaps the Minister could tell me why that did not happen.

Si�n Simon: That could not have been done because the situation was caused by a failure to notify under the technical standards directive. In order for the provision to work, we had to notify it in draft under that directive. We did that three months before 15 December. The first day on which we could have had the First Reading was 15 December, and we did so. Today-the second day back after the recess-is the first opportunity that we have had to deal with this on the Floor of the House.
	There are two very important points to make on why we are dealing with the Bill so urgently in one day. First, we are not changing the law in any way. The existing law has been debated using all the full procedures and has been in force for 25 years-it is only the enforceability that turns out not to have been enacted, and we need to address that.
	The second point that I want to stress is that the lack of enforceability has serious consequences. Almost any kind of serious, explicit, violent, brutal, nasty DVDs and video games can be supplied at the moment to anybody- [ Interruption. ] I am sorry; that was a long intervention.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for that long intervention, which was helpful. I am grateful to him for explaining the constraints on First Reading. I am simply making the point that this is not an approach that I think the House should readily accept from the Government. It is not my intention to divide the House on this issue, or to do anything of that kind. However, we need to make the point that procedure exists for a purpose. If we can improve procedure so that we take less time on things that do not need a lot of debate, I am all for it-it is part of the modernisation of the House that we spoke about in Prime Minister's questions. However, we need the delay between Second Reading and the completion of the passage of a Bill in this House if we are to make good law, and making good law is what this House is about. It sometimes achieves very little in the way of that because of the curtailing of procedures. That is the only observation that I have to make and I hope that we can now proceed.

Keith Vaz: I, too, shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, because of the guidance that you have given. I want to be reassured that when it comes to the substantive debate the Minister will deal with the points of substance to do with what has happened over the past 25 years, including the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)-issues such as what has happened to those who have been prosecuted and whether they will be entitled to compensation. If the Minister will deal with those points, I shall be happy to support the motion.

Philip Davies: You are a reasonable man, Mr. Speaker, so I can only presume that your necessary intervention earlier was caused by my not explaining myself sufficiently. I shall try again to overcome the difficulty that there seemed to be the first time around.
	I take the points made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath): we should not be having Acts of Parliament made in one day, with all stages debated on that day, unless it is absolutely necessary. The purpose of my initial intervention on the Minister, which I hope I shall be able to clarify in my short speech, was that, given that there have been hundreds of prosecutions under the 1984 Act as it stands, can we satisfy ourselves that the Bill is so necessary and urgent that it must go through all its stages in one day? I urge the Minister to clarify where we are with the prosecutions under the 1984 Act. If they are no longer valid and therefore need to be rescinded, I should have thought that that would be important.

Don Foster: I understand entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but will he bear it in mind that every day that we wait to bring the legislation back into force, people will legitimately be able to sell inappropriate material to minors? Local authorities are being prosecuted because they have sought, apparently erroneously, to prosecute people for doing what we would all agree is wrong. We need to get on with it very quickly. Does he not agree?

Philip Davies: I absolutely agree. In effect, that was the point that I was trying to tease out from the Minister in the first place. We need to know where we stand with existing prosecutions, because if they all have to be rescinded and if none of them now has any basis in law, we would need to do this all in one day. I hope that the Minister can explain that to our satisfaction so that we know the urgency of this matter.

Si�n Simon: I shall construe your silence on the matter, Mr. Speaker, as consent that I might reply to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) within the terms of this part of the debate. Prosecutions that occurred since the error was discovered in August will not have been able to proceed and will not be able to be instituted retrospectively. That is why-I think that this is what he was getting at-it is important to pass the Bill. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, not only does the situation continue with every day that goes past, but evidence from around the country shows that it is reasonable to assume that the problem will grow. The more people are not prosecuted for supplying very inappropriate material, the more people will see an angle through which they can make what one might call an evil buck. Over the past few years there have been between 100 and 200 prosecutions a year, on average, and a great deal of other activity, which might not be prosecuted, is deterred by the enforceability of the law. I hope that I have answered the points raised by the hon. Member for Shipley.
	On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), we will deal with the substantive issues in greater detail in the Second Reading debate on this short two-clause Bill. It does not in any way change an existing Act. It simply repeals and revives. On that basis, I commend the allocation of time motion to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Video Recordings Bill

Second Reading

Si�n Simon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others for their encouragement. We live in an age where videos, DVDs and more recently Blu-ray discs constitute a hugely important part of every family's entertainment. Figures compiled by the British Video Association show that a record 258 million DVDs, Blu-ray DVDs and videos were sold in 2008, with a total market value of £2.3 billion. A further 79 million videos, DVDs and Blu-ray DVDs were rented in 2008. The number of films sold on video has more than trebled in the past 10 years from 61 million units in 1999 to 196 million last year. According to the British Video Association, 6.5 million DVD players were sold in 2008, taking cumulative DVD hardware sales since launch to 55 million- the equivalent of two players for every household in the UK.
	Videos and DVDs are an essential element of domestic life in the 21st century, yet they are a relatively recent part of our cultural experience. The video recorder was invented in the 1960s and began to take off as a mass market phenomenon only in the late 1970s. In 1979 there were 200,000 video recorders in the UK but by 1984, when the original Video Recordings Act was introduced, over 4 million had been sold. Looking to the future-I am sure that hon. Members will make this point later-there is a definite shift in how we consume both video and video game content. The online distribution models are developing and will no doubt continue to do so at an increasing pace.

Greg Knight: Is the Minister aware of any convictions that are currently being challenged or are the subject of an appeal as a result of what appears to be a defective process?

Si�n Simon: Certainly, there will have been prosecutions that were pending or in process when the defect, to echo the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, was discovered. Those will have had to be stopped once it became apparent that the law was no longer enforceable because of its non-notification. We have heard of a handful of putative-usually putative-appeals or claims for compensation against previous convictions, although all our advice tells us that such speculative attempts to exploit the loophole further are likely to be unsuccessful.
	Although the online environment is clearly the future and is going to grow, we must not be dismissive of the traditional boxed product. Only yesterday, senior executives from Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony were all reported as saying that digitally distributed product is unlikely to overtake the boxed product for some considerable time to come.

Keith Vaz: It is very nice to hear about the contribution that the industry makes to the British economy. Does the Minister intend, in his speech, to touch on the Byron review and the Government's commitment to prevent violent video games from falling into the hands of young people? Are the Government still committed to the conclusions of Byron? Will the recommendations be implemented in full? When will the Digital Economy Bill come before the House? It deals with all the other issues that the Minister cannot deal with in the context of the present Bill.

Si�n Simon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is a tireless advocate of his views on the subject. Yes, the Government are committed to Byron and to child safety. The work of the Internet Watch Foundation and the Department for Children, Schools and Families-led group that has been set up in an unprecedented way across Government to look at all child safety issues online is very important, groundbreaking and central to what the Government are doing. As my right hon. Friend knows, those are matters not for today, but for the Digital Economy Bill, which is now in another place.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me a second time. He talked about the boxed games. One of the concerns is that when people buy video games, there is not sufficient notice on those games that they have adult content, which is central to what the Video Recordings Bill hopes to do-to ensure proper enforcement. Is there anything in the proposal or in any measure that the Government propose to introduce in the near future that will ensure that when retailers sell such games, it is clear that they have adult content-that is, by increasing the very small notification on the box that it is an adult game?

Si�n Simon: As my right hon. Friend knows, child safety, boxed games, and good information that is readily understandable by the public when adult content is included in games or DVDs are central to our approach and to the Byron recommendation that content should be clearly labelled and that content unsuitable for children should not be made available for children.
	However, that is not a matter for today. None of the provisions that we are discussing today in this short two-clause Bill will affect that in any way. The size of the rating symbols on the boxes is a subject which I know my right hon. Friend and I will discuss at length in the Committee stage of the Digital Economy Bill. I look forward to that, but it is not something that I should be diverted into discussing today.

Don Foster: The Minister will be aware, as many of us are, that because of the length of time that it now looks likely the Digital Economy Bill will take in another place, there is a real possibility that time will run out to complete its passage through both Houses before the forthcoming general election. Given the importance of the specific issue raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, will the Minister give an assurance to the House that if time ran out, measures would be sought to find agreement so that at least that aspect, on which there is all-party agreement, could still get on to the statute book?

Si�n Simon: We have every intention of getting the Digital Economy Bill in its entirety on to the statute book although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in order to do that, we will be partly reliant on the good will of members of his party and of the official Opposition- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Si�n Simon: I think I have made the point. We intend to get the legislation through before the election. If the hon. Member for Bath and his hon. Friends, and right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, will help us with that, that would be the best approach for all concerned.
	I shall make progress. As I said, we should not be blinded by the online future and discount the importance of the massive volume of boxed products that will continue to be sold in the UK.
	The early 1980s saw the introduction, largely from America, of what became known as video nasties: videos that depicted acts of gross violence and violent sexual acts-acts so extreme that they caused concern about the potential effects of watching them on young people and vulnerable adults. In response, Parliament passed in 1984 the Video Recordings Act. That Act introduced a system for classifying video films and some video games according to their content, and a series of offences for supplying classified videos and video games to people under the age restriction. The 1984 Act also stopped the distribution of video nasties by ensuring that such films did not receive a classification and making it an offence to supply unclassified material.
	Some 25 years on, it is clear that the provisions of the 1984 Act have worked to remove the worst material from circulation. For example, the British Board of Film Classification, the body appointed under the 1984 Act to classify videos and DVDs, recently refused to classify the highly controversial Japanese film, Grotesque. The BBFC explained that
	the film has running themes of sexual assault, humiliation and extreme torture...and...presents the audience with...an unrelenting and escalating scenario of...sadism...(including sexual sadism) for its own sake.
	The 1984 Act was introduced to remove such films from general circulation, and I am sure that all hon. Members will congratulate the BBFC on its often unpleasant work.
	It is also clear that the system of classification that the 1984 Act introduced is well understood and well regarded by the public. Independent research conducted on behalf of the BBFC shows that 71 per cent. of adults make use of the classification ratings of films to guide their purchasing decisions at least some of the time, and that 46 per cent. do so before purchasing video games. In addition, out of a total of 3,900 film viewing occasions, those surveyed agreed 99 per cent. of the time with the BBFC's classifications. It is a good organisation, implementing a good piece of legislation that works, and it was with considerable regret, therefore, that we discovered in August 2009, during our preparations for the Digital Economy Bill, which, as hon. Members will know, is in another place for consideration, that the 1984 Act was no longer enforceable under UK law. The situation arose because of a procedural failure in 1984 to notify the European Commission of the Act's provisions in draft under the technical standards directive. I keep stressing in draft because we have to repeal the 1984 Act and revive it so that it can be notified in draft; we cannot notify an existing Act.

Edward Vaizey: In case anyone wishes to make a party political point about the issue, it may be worth noting that the legislation was not notified in draft because it was a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. Will the Minister elaborate on how the error was discovered in 2009 and, to return to the point, on when the Cabinet Office intends to conclude its audit of all Acts passed since 1984 in terms of their compliance with the technical standards directive?

Si�n Simon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I do not want to make a party political point out of the issue. That would be silly, and I am not going to do so. Nobody involved with the legislation then is a Member now, but I think that another reason why the error might have occurred is that the technical standards directive came in early in 1984 and the Video Recordings Act came out slightly later. They almost overlapped in their inception.

Edward Vaizey: If I can help the Minister, I should say that the directive came into force on 28 March 1983 and the Bill was introduced on 11 November 1983, meaning that it had to be notified to the European Commission in about August 1983. The directive was therefore very new, and I think that Graham Bright, who introduced the Bill as a private Member, might be forgiven for not being completely à point with European law.

Si�n Simon: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his extraordinary parliamentary erudition, and for his help on the matter.

Don Foster: May I further help the Minister? While he is being extremely generous to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) on the Conservative Front Bench in relation to what happened in 1983 and 1984, will he also bear in mind that in 1993, many years later, the 1984 Act was considered again in great detail, when it was amended by the then Conservative Government, whose current party leader was at that time an adviser to the then Home Secretary? Surely by 1993 the omission should have been noticed.

Si�n Simon: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point, and he makes it more difficult for me to resist making cheap party political points at the expense of the Opposition. Nevertheless, I shall resist.

John Whittingdale: Just to be helpful, I might point out that the mover of the amendment to the Act in 1993 was of course Mr. David Alton, so perhaps the conclusion is that we all bear some responsibility.

Si�n Simon: I shall move on to answer the question from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) about how the omission was discovered last year. The answer is that, as part of our preparation for the Digital Economy Bill, we were involved in a similar process of notifying to the European Commission the Bill's amendments to the 1984 Act-a similar process to that which the hon. Member for Bath suggests one might have thought would have happened in 1993 and 1994. On this most recent occasion during that process, it was noticed that the original Bill had not been notified.

Edward Vaizey: Will the Minister help me? I think that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, has inadvertently been helpful, which is not a phrase that I often like to use-but we are all in the process of engaging with the Liberal Democrats. If the 1984 Act was amended in 1993, was the amendment notified to the European Commission; and is that aspect of the Act, therefore, still enforceable?

Si�n Simon: My understanding is-I am pretty clear-that none of the Act is enforceable, because the original legislation was not notified to the Commission in 1983-84.

Philip Davies: After everyone has been so helpful, I do not want to be unhelpful, but I am still puzzled, because the Library research paper on the Bill before us states that
	the Government's legal advice appears to be that previous convictions under the 1984 Act are safe.
	If there is a loophole and the 1984 Act is unenforceable, I do not understand how previous convictions under it can be safe. Will the Minister explain that point, please?

Si�n Simon: The convictions are safe in the sense that any attempt to seek any restitution against them would almost certainly fail in court. For instance, any appeal would be an out-of-time appeal, after 21 days, and therefore, although it would be technically possible to mount an out-of-time appeal, it would be very unlikely to succeed. If a criminal mounts an appeal because they have discovered a brief loophole in the law, they are pretty unlikely to receive a sympathetic hearing from a court. All our advice suggests that for a range of reasons like that, it is very unlikely that criminals and disreputable people will be able to exploit the loophole by seeking such restitution.
	The purpose of the Video Recordings Bill, therefore, is very simple. It is designed only to repeal and revive the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 in order to make the criminal offences in the Act enforceable again. Until that has been done, no new prosecutions can be made under the Act and prosecutors cannot oppose appeals made in time against convictions. This means that publishers of videos, DVDs and 18-rated and R18-rated video games can distribute their goods free of any classification restrictions. Retailers can sell classified and unclassified adult material to any person, regardless of age, with limited statutory powers to stop or prosecute them. There is also a danger-although we think it slight-that past convictions may be challenged.
	To their credit, the reputable makers and distributors of videos and DVDs have continued to submit their films for classification voluntarily, and reputable retailers have continued to abide by the age classification restrictions. Trading standards officers throughout the country, however, are coming across more and more cases of people seeking to exploit the loophole. Officials are uncovering more and more cases of unscrupulous people selling unclassified material or age-restricted material either by post or in outlets that are not licensed sex shops.
	For example, law enforcement officials in Milton Keynes have had to return 550 seized unrated DVDs to a seller who is now free to supply them until the Act becomes enforceable again. To be clear, unrated means beyond the R18-potentially very unpleasant material. In Bournemouth, trading standards officers were unable to prevent a newsagent selling R18 and unrated hard-core sex videos, while in Conwy, law enforcement officers were unable to deal with seven cases of supplying 18-rated videos to children. In Edinburgh, five outlets supplying adult material could not be pursued by trading standards officers. These examples are just a few of the many being discovered by trading standards officers and law enforcement officers in every part of the country.
	The longer this legal loophole is allowed to exist, the greater risk of harm being caused to the public by the unrestricted circulation of this kind of material and the greater the potential for the most extreme material to be supplied to children. It is therefore vital in helping to restore the public's faith in Parliament and the video classification system that we act quickly to restore the important public protections contained in the 1984 Act.
	The Bill was notified to the European Commission on 10 September 2009 and the three-month notification period expired on 11 December 2009. The fact that we introduced the Bill on 15 December-the earliest possible date after the expiry of the notification period-and are using the fast-track procedure is a measure of how important the Government view the need for the VRA to be made enforceable again.
	I know of the concern in this House and in the other place about the use of the fast-track process for legislation and the dangers involved in it, but the Video Recordings Bill provides a classic example of why fast-track legislation still has a role to play. There is a real problem that needs to be dealt with quickly in order to restore important public protections. The Bill does not introduce any new provisions beyond those with which we are all familiar and that have been successfully enforced for 25 years.
	The Bill could hardly be simpler, consisting of only two clauses and a schedule. Clause 1(1) repeals the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 and then immediately revives them. Clause 2 refers simply to the short title of the Bill, its commencement and extent. The schedule contains transitional provisions that are designed to ensure that the repeal and revival of the VRA provisions do not change their effect or the effect of other documents that refer to them-in other words, it ensures that all administrative decisions taken previously under the Act still remain valid in law. This is needed to ensure both that all films do not need to be submitted for classification again and a seamless transition once the 1984 Act is revived.
	In order to close the period during which offences cannot be prosecuted as soon as possible, the Bill is intended to come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Thus, in summary, the Bill does not introduce any new provisions or offences into the 1984 Act; it simply restores a system of classification that has been in operation for the last 25 years, which has worked to stop the circulation of the worst kind of video material. It is a system that is well understood and liked by a clear majority of the public and the industry. The Bill is essential to ensure proper protection of the public from the inappropriate supply of violent and sexual video material by making the offences under the 1984 Act enforceable again.
	In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope that I can call on the support of the whole House to ensure its speedy passage through all its stages in the House of Commons today.

Edward Vaizey: I am grateful for this chance to support the Government in seeking to pass the Video Recordings Bill. As the Minister noted in his opening remarks, we are here for some very peculiar reasons. In theory, we are debating a Bill that was enacted as long ago as 1984. The then Video Recordings Bill was introduced by Graham Bright, the then Member for Luton, South, who rose to become an extremely successful Parliamentary Private Secretary to an extremely successful Prime Minister, John Major. He introduced the Bill on 11 November 1983.
	As is well known, the Bill was intended to address the problem of what were then known as video nasties. Because videos were unclassified, it was perfectly legal to sell any kind of video without any restriction whatever. As the Minister noted, in the mid-'80s, video recorders-and therefore videos-were becoming all-pervasive, so there was a need to act because videos showing all kinds of unmentionable acts were freely available.
	The approach adopted by Mr. Bright in dealing with this problem was ingenious. He introduced a system of classification, and what became illegal was not the selling of an obscene video but the selling of an unclassified video, or a classified video to an inappropriate audience. The test of whether somebody was guilty under the Act was extremely clear-cut. Before the Act was passed, the problem had been that the only available sanction to stop a video nasty was the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Almost by definition, that was a subjective and difficult test to pass. In fact, there were cases of juries clearing people who were accused of selling an obscene video because the jury clearly took the view that it was not obscene. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 it was made clear that one could not sell an unclassified video. I shall go on to explain why the Act has been so successful-largely because the British Board of Film Classification, to which I pay tribute, has been extremely successful in implementing its provisions.
	If any hon. Member has the time over the weekend-or perhaps they will have had time over the Christmas break-it is worth revisiting the debates on the Video Recordings Bill in 1983 and 1984. I am extremely grateful to Mark Taylor from the Library, who pulled out the Committee stages for me to have a look at. The Minister and I were both doing our O-levels at the time, so we may not have been that focused on the debates then taking place.
	As the Minister said in his opening remarks, there is a salutary lesson here about how quickly technology changes and moves on. It almost quaint to read those debates, with people referring to the video recording industry as a new and dynamic industry; I suspect that most video recorders are now discarded or hidden away in attics. The Minister says that it will be a considerable time before film downloads overtake box sets, but I suspect that in a few years' time, DVD machines will be going the same way and we will be downloading films directly on to our televisions. I will come back to that problem in a few minutes.
	The debate on the Bill took place at a time when the technology revolution was just beginning. It is breathtaking to see the changes that have subsequently taken place in our lifetimes.
	It is worth reviewing some of the arguments for and against the Bill at the time. For example, there was a proposal to license video stores, which was rightly rejected as bureaucratic. There was also a debate about- [Interruption.] There are noises off, Mr. Speaker, which are distracting me from my carefully drafted speech. It is interesting to note-well, it is interesting to me, if not to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)-that there were also calls for self-regulation of the video recording industry and suggestions that it should be given time to come up with its own system of regulation. I view that as interesting, because there are echoes of our current debate as the Digital Economy Bill goes through the other place and we are debating whether it is appropriate for the Government to regulate on internet piracy or whether there should be self-regulation by the internet service providers. As the Minister knows, we support the Government in bringing in legislation to crack down on internet piracy.
	The debate was notable for other contributions, notably a maiden speech by a new Conservative Member for Norwich, which brings to mind the excellent maiden speech recently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Chloe Smith). The highlight of the Second Reading debate at the time was a fine and intelligent speech by one Matthew Parris, the then Member for West Derbyshire, who showed the flair and imagination that have been such a hallmark of his subsequently glittering career in journalism. I say all this in the full expectation that I will be written up in exceptionally glowing terms in his column in  The Times this Saturday. While this House was sad to lose Mr. Parris, its sorrow was tempered by the election of his successor, who I may say has served the people of West Derbyshire, and this House, exceptionally ever since.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's very blatant tribute to his own Chief Whip is of great interest to the House but of no relevance to the Video Recordings Bill.

Edward Vaizey: I would never dare to argue with you, Mr. Speaker, but I am a little hurt that you have stolen my punchline. I was, of course, referring to my Chief Whip, but there we go. There goes the joke. I had asked for the entire Committee stage of the previous Bill to be photocopied for me, and I was going to refer in some detail to those proceedings in 1983 and 1984. However, I shall take my lead from you, and pass over what I intended to be an extensive discussion of them.
	As the Minister has made clear, someone forgot to tell Europe-or, more accurately, the European Commission-that the previous draft Bill should have been referred to the Commission under Council directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983. That directive is more colloquially known-and referred to in my local pub, where we speak of little else-as the technical standards directive. That failure to refer the Bill to the Commission meant that the legislation became unenforceable. This was an error of Keystone Cops proportions, although part of me would like to think that it was a deliberate attempt to subvert the European project. I like to think of the Act standing alone, redoubtable on the white cliffs of Dover, saying something colloquial to the European Commission, such as, We'll deal with our own pornographers, thank you very much. Sadly, however, this one last redoubt that has stood against Europe for the past 25 years is to be snuffed out today, because somebody told the Commissioners that we had not referred it to them.

Don Foster: I might have misheard the hon. Gentleman. Will he confirm that his understanding of the Bill that we are about to pass is that it does not involve Brussels imposing something on the UK, but instead achieves a position in which we can prevent the importation of material from other EU countries that does not have the certification that we require? Is this not therefore a case of the UK imposing things on other EU countries, and not the other way round?

Edward Vaizey: No, that is not my understanding of the Bill. As I understand it, an Act passed by a sovereign Parliament is not an Act unless it has been approved by Brussels.

Si�n Simon: I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Act remains an Act: an Act of this Parliament is an Act of Parliament when it is an Act of Parliament. All that is in question is the enforceability of the Act, which remains on the statute book.

Edward Vaizey: We are in danger of descending into sophistry. It is an Act of Parliament, but it is a toothless one unless it is referred to Brussels. That is the situation that we are in, but we are not having a debate on Europe and its encroaching powers. Through interventions on the Minister, we have asked how many other Acts of this British Parliament might be toothless, and we look forward to him telling us when the Cabinet Office will report on its audit of every single Act passed since the technical standards directive was put into force.

Keith Vaz: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest-but he has not yet told us what grades he got in his O-levels.

Edward Vaizey: rose-

Keith Vaz: That was a sort of rhetorical question. I am sure you would have something to say if we were to discuss that, Mr. Speaker.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned an audit of all the Acts since 1984. Does he have information to suggest that other Acts of Parliament have breached the European rules, or is he just speculating that some might have done so? It would involve an awful lot of work if the Cabinet Office were to go through every single Act of Parliament.

Edward Vaizey: The Cabinet Office would not have to go through every single Act of Parliament. It would have to go through only those that have an effect on trade and the free movement of goods. The hon. Member for Bath made the point that the Act restricts the trade in videos and therefore has to be referred to the European Commission. I hear what the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is saying, however. I know that his Government are keen to save money to protect front-line services, as they say, and perhaps he thinks that the Cabinet Office exercise is a waste of money. Nevertheless, it is going ahead, as the Minister made clear. The Minister hesitated in his response, saying that as far as he knew, no other Act had breached the requirement for reference under the technical standards directive. However, the audit is taking place, and we would like to know when it will be completed.
	I want to say a word about fast-track legislation. I said that we supported the Government's aim of getting the Bill through, but I take note of the remark made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that they should not assume, simply because we agree that this Bill is suitable for fast-track legislation, that any other Bill that they decide to fast-track will receive the same assent. However, we agree that this Bill should be fast-tracked, for the reason that the Minister gave-that an important Act that protects the public from unpalatable video content remains unenforceable and is being breached up and down the country. People are aware of the loophole and, as the hon. Member for Bath said, if we delay any longer, the breaches will continue. The Minister said that this would be an effective piece of legislation that could be implemented quickly; it was also debated extensively when it was first introduced.
	I paid tribute earlier to the work of the British Board of Film Classification, and it is worth spending some time explaining to the House how the board goes about implementing the legislation. It awards an appropriate classification to video works, it provides clear consumer advice, and when necessary it removes material from a work. In extremis, it refuses to classify a work. I think that about 4 per cent. of videos submitted to the BBFC are unclassified or have cuts made. That figure is down from a peak of about 12 per cent. when the Act was first introduced, which shows that the Act works not only through the direct intervention of the BBFC but by implication, in the sense that people are keen to comply with the BBFC's guidelines before submitting a work to it.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend puts a positive interpretation on those statistics, but will he concede that they might contain a slightly less positive message? The fact that the number of cuts and rejections has gone down so massively in the past 20 years might mean that although the content of the videos is just as bad as it ever was, the BBFC is now less keen to cut them than it was then.

Edward Vaizey: I certainly concede that point. One can look at this from the perspective that the glass is half full, or that it is half empty, because tastes have changed. An example is the film A Clockwork Orange, which was originally banned but is now available on video.

John Whittingdale: I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I believe that A Clockwork Orange was not banned, but withdrawn by Kubrick, because he was publicly blamed for certain attacks that took place, which the press attributed to the influence of his film.

Edward Vaizey: I take my hon. Friend's correction. I cannot think of another film off the top of my head, but perhaps The Texas Chainsaw Massacre might-

John Whittingdale: Straw Dogs.

Edward Vaizey: Straw Dogs is one that I almost mentioned. I have not seen it, but it was in the BBFC's briefing to me. I shall come to that film in a moment, as it is covered in my speech.
	Obviously tastes change, and some films and videos that were unpalatable 20 years ago are now more palatable. For example, Straw Dogs, an X-rated 1971 film that was originally rejected for video release, was accepted uncut for video release in 2002 with an 18 classification. The Exorcist was released uncut on video in 1999, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we have had enough of this-

Edward Vaizey: rose-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for four and a half years. I am sure he knows that he needs to resume his seat. I was sceptical as to whether we needed to go round the legislative course of 25 years ago, but I am absolutely certain that we need no further evidence of the hon. Gentleman's expertise in cinema.

Edward Vaizey: I concede your point, Mr. Speaker, but, yet again, you have torpedoed my next joke. Depressingly, I was going to cite the example of Bridget Jones's Diary, a DVD that was, surprisingly, censored by the BBFC. I was going to make the joke that unless we pass this legislation rapidly, Richard Curtis might start putting out unsuitable DVDs, but I now I shall not.
	The BBFC works closely with law enforcement agencies by providing classification evidence to ensure successful prosecutions. That co-operation is necessarily on hold while the Video Recordings Act 1984 is unenforceable.
	There were several notable interventions in the Minister's opening remarks about the effect of the unenforceability of the Act on previous prosecutions, which fills me with concern. As far as I am aware, something like 2,600 prosecutions have been successfully carried out under the Act. He says that his Department has received legal advice that if people seek to overturn convictions they are unlikely to succeed, but I do not share his confidence. It appears to be based on legal advice that he and his Department have received that an appeal against conviction would be out of time. However, I assert to him that an individual seeking to overturn a previous conviction would not simply appeal against it-by definition, they would have been prosecuted under a unenforceable Act, so there would be nothing to appeal against. Instead, they would seek to set it aside. I am concerned about that.
	The House is not in the habit of passing retrospective legislation. The last Conservative Government passed one piece of retrospective legislation-the War Crimes Act 1991, which allowed people living in this country who were guilty of war crimes in the second world war to be prosecuted. It is not a habit that we want to get into, but I counsel the Minister that his legal advice appears to be extremely ropy. For example, if a person has been convicted under an unenforceable Act-we concede that the 1984 Act is unenforceable-what do they do about their Criminal Records Bureau file? A CRB check on someone could show that they had been convicted under the Act, but they might want to get rid of that and apply to have the conviction set aside. Is it appropriate that the CRB should put convictions under the Act on people's files? That concerns me.
	I would also be interested to know what the legal advice on compensation is. Of course, if people seek to set aside their convictions, that is one thing, but seeking compensation from the Government is quite another. What advice has the Minister received about what compensation might be available to people who seek to set aside those convictions? My hope-I do not have the necessary expertise in such matters-is that compensation would be de minimis if it was given at all.
	The key point that the Minister tried to get across in his speech, and which we support him on, is that the 1984 Act is very much a live Act: it works and it is effective. Unlike many of the Acts and Bills that we debate in the House-one thinks of the Fiscal Responsibility Bill, which we debated yesterday-the Act has a real impact on consumers every day. He cited the opinion polls that show that 71 per cent. of people make use of classifications under the Act. There is mandatory labelling on the front and back of cases and any other surface of 5 cm or more, and videos must carry the BBFC age rating in words in a prominent position and in a specific size. In the case of box sets that contain differently rated works in one package, the classification of the highest-rated work must be printed on the outer packaging. The vast majority of video distributors include consumer advice to provide additional detail about a work's rating to enable parents to make an informed choice about their children's video viewing, so the ratings empower the consumer, particularly parents.

Keith Vaz: I am delighted that the Minister raises the issue of children. Presumably he is fully behind the recommendations of Tanya Byron. Those over 18 may choose whatever video or DVD they want, but we need to have measures in place that will protect children and young people from having access to violent video games.

Edward Vaizey: We need to protect children from access to violent video games, films, television shows and books. The issue is not the genre-be it video game, film or video-but the content. That is what we must protect children from. I am flattered that the right hon. Gentleman already considers me to be a Minister. If he is that worried about a future Conservative victory, I hope he will join the rebellion currently being instigated by a number of ex-Ministers for a secret ballot-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe the hon. Gentleman has enjoyed a fair amount of latitude already this afternoon, and I seriously urge him to stick to the confines of the debate before us.

Edward Vaizey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The 1984 Act has been effective in dealing with under-age sales, and it is a vital tool in helping to ensure that children and young people do not gain access to products that are harmful and detrimental to their safety and welfare. Picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), it is interesting to note that in the past two years, more than 200 cases of under-age sales have been prosecuted. That is an example of how the Act is working, and in particular of how it is being implemented to protect children. We often talk about protecting children in the abstract, but the Act is a real, live example.
	The Act helps to deal with unofficial and counterfeit goods, and it is used to prevent supplies of counterfeit or pirate works and as a means of detecting unclassified works. It is therefore effective against unofficial products being put into circulation, and therefore helps to protect legitimate businesses from unscrupulous trading. The BBFC frequently gives evidence to the Federation Against Copyright Theft and the Trading Standards Institute on whether a seized work has been classified by it for distribution in the UK. Even if traders of pirated products are not prosecuted on behalf of rights owners for conspiracy to defraud, or for copyright or trade mark infringement, actions can still be taken for illegally supplying an unclassified work or a classified work to an under-age person.
	The Act helps to deal with the problem of parallel imports of video works from other countries. Those are normally in breach of it because they have not been classified or labelled for UK distribution. That is extremely useful to UK retailers and distributors who have acquired licences for sale in the UK and who wish to protect their businesses from unlicensed imports. The point again is that often, prosecutions are the tip of the iceberg. The fact is that people who seek to import videos and distribute them illegally in this country are put off by the provisions of the Act.
	The Act can be a gateway to the discovery of other serious offences. Often, investigations that begin with a breach of the Act unearth other criminality such as obscene images, the proceeds of crime or illegitimate business dealings. It can therefore help to uncover unscrupulous businesses.
	As the Minister indicated, although the Act remains unenforceable, it is heartening that legitimate makers of videos continue to comply with its provisions. Responsible members of the home entertainment industry, which includes distributors belonging to the British Video Association and games publishers, have continued to submit their works to the BBFC for classification. However, the BBFC is concerned that others are not doing so.

Don Foster: I join the hon. Gentleman in his praise of the industry. Is he aware that in fact, the number of products that have been submitted for classification since the problem arose has dropped significantly? There must be a concern that material is being produced and sold inappropriately and unclassified.

Edward Vaizey: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were not in the Chamber when Mr. Speaker continued to anticipate my every remark. Now that he has left the Chamber, that role has been taken by the hon. Gentleman, because I was about to say that the BBFC is concerned that submissions have decreased significantly. There was an 11 per cent. reduction in September 2009 and 20 per cent. in October 2009. He is not even listening to me now, but there was a reduction of 38 per cent. in only the first half of November 2009. That is an extremely worrying trend.
	There are numerous examples of distributors blatantly disregarding the law because they know that it is unenforceable. For example, in Bournemouth, trading standards officers cannot prevent a newsagent from selling R18 and unrated hardcore sex videos or two unlicensed sex shops from selling unrated DVDs. There are examples throughout the country: Brent, Cheltenham, Conwy, Dorset, the highlands, Havering, Islington, Luton, Manchester, Milton Keynes, Powys and Southampton have all reported examples of retailers distributing unclassified works because they know that the 1984 Act is not enforceable. As the Under-Secretary said, some local authorities are even being pursued through the courts for carrying out in good faith what they believed to be their statutory obligations.
	We have made it clear from the outset that we support the Government's intention to pass the Bill as quickly as possible. Let me mention only two concerns on which, in a perfect world, we wish the Government had acted.
	First, as the hon. Member for Bath said, the Digital Economy Bill will amend the 1984 Act and bring video games into a system of statutory classification using the European rating system known as PEGI-pan European game information. Broadly speaking, hon. Members of all parties support that. Everybody recognises that video games should be classified under a statutory system. The vigorous debate that took place between the British Board of Film Classification and PEGI about the appropriate rating system was played out and a conclusion, which Conservative Members support, was reached.
	However, we assert that the Under-Secretary could have inserted relevant provisions in a draft Bill, which could then have been submitted to the European Commission in September and returned to the House to be enacted. To pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made, although we support fast-tracking the Bill, we would have supported including provisions in a draft that was submitted to the European Commission and extending the debate on the measure. It need not have taken long-we could have had Second Reading today, Committee tomorrow and Third Reading next week.
	I make that point because there is serious concern about the time available for the Digital Economy Bill. It is debatable whether we will even get a chance to discuss those provisions in this House. If the Under-Secretary responds by claiming that including those draft provisions in the Bill that we are discussing would have made a debate impossible, I say wait and see whether we even have a debate on those provisions, if and when they come before us through the Digital Economy Bill. I am not sending a hidden message. Conservative Members intend to co-operate on the Digital Economy Bill-although we take issue with some of it, it contains many important provisions that help the digital economy. However, in the circumstances, with the Prime Minister on the verge of toppling because of a rebellion by his-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat my earlier remarks to the hon. Gentleman and remind him that we are dealing with one Bill at a time. At the moment, we are considering the Video Recordings Bill.

Edward Vaizey: That is absolutely correct.
	There is some concern that music and sports videos remain exempt from classification. Again, that exemption could have been removed in a draft submitted to the European Commission. There is overwhelming support for removing the exemptions. There is not a shred of logic or intellectual credibility to keeping music and sports videos exempt. Why should something be exempt just because it is of a particular genre? As I said to the right hon. Member for Leicester, East, we are worried about inappropriate content being distributed to minors and adults. Whether it is in a video game, DVD, film, a music video or something related to sport is irrelevant. The exemption is bizarre. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees-he is nodding.

Keith Vaz: I do not agree that we are talking about the same thing. A film with inappropriate content is not interactive. The point about video games, which is backed up by research from America, is that the player is part of the process. Players shoot and stab people in a video game, and that is different. I accept that inappropriate content is wrong, wherever it is found, but video games are different.

Edward Vaizey: I continue to assume that the right hon. Gentleman is against hard-core pornography and offensive content. For example, a video by the band Slipknot, which includes self-mutilation by teenagers, remains unclassified. Before we get into a debate on censorship, I am not saying that that content cannot be viewed by responsible adults, or that the video by Mötley Crüe, which depicts a George Bush lookalike with a prostitute, could not be viewed by responsible 18-year-olds. However, I think that all hon. Members agree that it should not be viewed by a 10-year-old, and should therefore be classified so that parents know, if their 10 or 11-year-old comes home saying, I've got the latest Mötley Crüe video, exactly what it could contain. It is extraordinary that music and sports videos are exempt. We will continue to press for the removal of that exemption. However, we are where we are; the Bill has been introduced in its current form and we do not intend to stand in its way.
	I end with a wider point about what the Bill omits, and ask whether we are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted and whether, by considering a Bill that applies to a venerable Act-25 years old-we are missing the point. I ask that because of the advent of the internet and convergence. Although the Under-Secretary said in his opening remarks that experts who retail such products believe that it will be some considerable time before the download of film overtakes the purchase and rental of DVDs, I counsel that that considerable time could be considerably shortened when one considers, for example, YouTube, which grew from nothing to being a global company in 18 months.
	To pick up on the comments of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East about the Byron report, which focuses on keeping children safe in a digital world, I am genuinely interested in the Under-Secretary's thoughts about how and whether content should be regulated online. As he knows, an increasing number of video distributors submit their films for classification to the BBC for an online rating, but obviously more unscrupulous dealers do not do that. The legislation does nothing to ensure that there are any sanctions against people who distribute videos online.
	The opportunity to respond to a Second Reading debate for the first time from the Front Bench has been thoroughly enjoyable. It has been a rollercoaster ride. There were a couple of clashes with Mr. Speaker, who took the punchlines of my best jokes, but I hope that I have covered the ground comprehensively and shown the reasons for the Opposition's support for the Government's fast-tracking the Bill today.

Keith Vaz: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey). I congratulate him on his maiden Second Reading speech from the Front Bench. It was fascinating and I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were not present for the whole contribution. I feel-and I am sure the House feels-that we know so much more about the hon. Gentleman, especially his encyclopaedic knowledge of all the films and videos that have been produced in the past 25 years.
	It must be a Minister's worst nightmare to arrive at his desk in Whitehall to be told by civil servants that an important Act is effectively illegal. An Act is an Act, as the Minister has said, but the news in respect of this Act was that it had not passed through the necessary European legislation hoops and that therefore the prosecutions under it for the past 26 years were, in effect, invalid. I do not know whether the Minister who is present was the Minister who was told that news, but if so, I would love to have been in his office as he received the advice. I must commend him, however, as I think he has dealt with this situation in an extremely calm and cool manner throughout, from how he responded to the first announcements just before Christmas to the way in which he has presented the Bill to the House. It is right for the Government to use this special method to try to get the legislation through the House, because the worst possible thing to do on discovering that an Act of Parliament is not, in fact, enforceable would be to allow that Act to remain on the statute book and individuals and companies to be prosecuted, and then to try to work out at a later stage exactly what to do about that very unfortunate circumstance.
	The Minister has given us an assurance that the Government have brought the matter before the House as best they could in the circumstances. We will therefore deal with all the Bill's stages this afternoon, and, judging by the number of Members attending this debate, we should deal with them speedily. By doing so, we might provide more time for discussion of the Digital Economy Bill, as the hon. Member for Wantage said.
	In common with every other Member who has spoken thus far, I of course agree that we need to correct the error made 26 years ago, and I commend the Minister on not seeking to make party political points about why it occurred, as this could have happened to any Minister. We do not expect Ministers to have encyclopaedic knowledge of how the European Union works. Ministers operate in accordance with the advice given to them, and clearly over the past 26 years advice was given to Ministers suggesting that the legislation was fully in keeping with European law and was therefore enforceable.
	I hope that when the Minister sums up he will tell us in greater detail precisely what will happen to those who have been prosecuted; he alluded to that during the discussion of the allocation of time motion. The question of compensation has been mentioned, and when this was announced I received a telephone call from the home affairs editor of  The Times telling me what had happened. There is genuine concern among those who have been prosecuted over the past 26 years as to whether their convictions were valid, whether the sums paid in fines will have to be repaid to them and whether they might be re-prosecuted as a result of the new legislation. I am sure that it will not be retrospective legislation. We cannot say that everybody who has been prosecuted under the 1984 Act will have to be re-prosecuted-we do not know. It is extremely important that there is clarity on such issues if the House is to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and allow them to pass the Bill in the space of one day-or a few hours, in fact.
	Let us be clear about what we wish to know. Will those who have been prosecuted be entitled to compensation, and if so, how much will they get? Will they be re-prosecuted? Do their convictions still stand, or are they expunged? What is the precise legal nature of this situation? I am sure that the Minister will have sought the advice of the Attorney-General and that she will have been very clear about where the Government stand in respect of an Act of Parliament that is found to be unenforceable. When the Minister sums up, I hope that he will tell us the answers to those questions.
	My second point is about the general debate concerning video games. I am keen not to stray beyond the measures of the Video Recordings Act 1984, but there were some very interesting comments from the Front Benches about their commitment to ensuring that the thriving and innovative video games industry in the United Kingdom, and particularly in London, survives. I am not against what is being proposed, and I have never been in favour of censorship; I have always been very clear that those who are aged 18-plus should be able to buy and watch whatever video games they want. Those who are not sufficiently old should not be able to do so, however, and those retailers who are prosecuted under this Act must be dealt with very severely indeed.
	I say that because I disagree with the hon. Member for Wantage, in that I do not believe that watching a film is the same as participating in a video game. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have very young grandchildren, and I have children aged 14 and 12. A huge amount of research has been done on the issue, and it has been found that half of all eight to 11-year-olds use the internet without adult supervision. I do not know how many Members present have children or grandchildren aged between eight and 11, but it is a real worry that a half of those in that age group are not supervised by adults when using the internet.
	Some parents take the home computer out of their children's rooms and put it in a room where everyone has access to it so that they can watch over what their children are doing online. Parents have different ways of dealing with that issue, but the fact is that watching a violent film is different from participating in a video game. If a young person gets hold of Modern Warfare 2, for example, they will be asked to participate in a terrorist attack; they will be asked to shoot at civilians in Moscow airport as part of the game. That is why the Russian Government have banned Modern Warfare 2; they felt that in an age when we are trying to educate our children about the need to understand the dangers of extreme violence, we should not place in their hands, under the guise of entertainment, games that allow them to act in a violent way.
	I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about the Digital Economy Bill coming before this House soon, and it is always the hope of Ministers that such Bills will come to the House from the other place quickly, but I have counted that we have just 35 working days from now until 31 March. Nobody knows when the next general election will be held, of course, but there are only 35 complete working days in which legislation can be addressed in this House.

John Whittingdale: The right hon. Gentleman refers to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. It is already rated 18 and therefore it is already illegal to sell it to somebody who is under age, without the Digital Economy Bill needing to be passed. I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on the necessity of passing that Bill, but there are already provisions in place that prevent children from playing that game.

Keith Vaz: Absolutely, and I would be the last person on earth to question the expertise of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. The hon. Gentleman is right, but there are certain bits of that Bill that it would be helpful if we could implement. That is a recommendation of Tanya Byron. There is absolutely no point in the Government setting up an inquiry and receiving an excellent report from Tanya Byron if they do not then implement the report as a matter of urgency.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on this matter. I know that some people believe that the Liberal Democrats exist to provide consensus, but he is true to type, and he has made it clear that if there are bits of the Digital Economy Bill that we can all agree on, we should go ahead and get on with implementing them. If we can implement the Bill currently under discussion as quickly as we are doing, why should we not do so in respect of other measures? That would be far better than leaving decisions on which Bills will get through to an end-of-Session barney behind the Speaker's Chair between the Chief Whips of both sides. That is not the right way to make legislation. I hope that we can move forward on the issue.
	The Byron recommendations must be implemented in full, as doing so will help to strengthen what the Government are trying to do enormously. As far as video recordings are concerned, I pay tribute to what the Government have done over the past few years. There has been a huge leap forward since I first took up this issue, along with others, after young Stefan Pakeerah, from Leicester, was stabbed to death in a park in Leicester in circumstances similar to those found in a video game watched by his killer, Warren Leblanc. I know that the judge in that case said that there was no connection, but the mother of the young boy stabbed to death felt very strongly that there was. Following subsequent meetings with two Prime Ministers and many Ministers, the Government have pushed forward on the matter.
	I welcome what the Government have done, but it remains the case that any Member of the House can walk into any video store subject to the Video Recordings Act 1984, pick up a box set and see a tiny-it is still tiny-reference to the age limit for those playing the game. Through various campaigns involving people on all sides, we increased the 18 certificate sign from about the size of a 1p piece to probably the size of a 10p or, possibly, 50p piece. Actually, we have always said that, as with cigarette packets, splashed across the front of a violent video game should be the fact that it has adult content-and good luck to over-18s who wish to buy it! That would bring the fact to the attention of retailers who might, sometimes inadvertently, sell the game to someone under the age of 18.
	I was interested to hear the statistics put forward by the hon. Member for Wantage on the number of stores that have been prosecuted. I have been after those statistics for some time. They are good news. The last time some mystery shopping was done-Trevor McDonald on one of his ITV programmes sent in a load of under-18 mystery shoppers-they were sold video games for over-18s, but the stores were not prosecuted. I welcome the fact that the figures are quite high. We are going through the bother of trying to get the Bill through quickly, and we should send out a message that legislation passed by the House will be implemented and that those who break the law will be prosecuted.
	Through no fault of the Minister, we find ourselves in the position of trying to repeal and re-enact a law originally passed 26 years ago. That is the fault of neither the Minister nor any other individual. The fact is that the Bill is before us today. I hope that we can make rapid progress and, in the near future, discuss the substance of video games and hear from the Minister on Second Reading of the Digital Economy Bill.

Don Foster: It is a great honour and privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who serves with such distinction as the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and has a clear personal interest in one of the key issues being debated today-video games. I was particularly delighted that he went out of his way to praise the video games industry. He is absolutely right in doing so: it is a vital part of this country's creative economy, which many people believe could be, with the relevant support, as important to the country's economy as the financial services industries have been. Many people have believed him to be interested only in condemning individual video games-he has gone on several crusades in that respect-so it was good to hear him praising the industry, as well as chastising it for some of the projects it has produced.
	I was also pleased that the right hon. Gentleman picked up on a point that I made in an intervention on the Minister. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have done the calculations on the Digital Economy Bill, which makes amendments to the Video Recordings Act 1984, and given the recent announcement that the time allocation in another place will be longer than originally anticipated, it seems highly unlikely that we will be able to get through all the stages of that Bill in this place before the likely date of the general election. Given that there is cross-party support for much of Tanya Byron's excellent report, I hope that the Minister can find ways to ensure that areas on which there is such agreement can be brought forward and put on to the statute book before the election.
	I was also pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), to whom I shall turn in a second, about the successful prosecutions of those who have been selling inappropriate videos to under-age people-to children. It is right and proper that we praise, for example, the many excellent trading standards officers in local authorities around the country who have brought those prosecutions so successfully-if only other cases of under-age sales, such as those of alcohol, were prosecuted with such vigour! However, I am delighted that that is happening in this case.
	I am always delighted to be involved in debates in which the hon. Gentleman has participated. I confess that it came as a complete surprise to hear that this was his maiden Second Reading speech as a shadow Minister. He seems to have been in his place as a shadow Minister for so long; it demonstrates how scarce is the legislation on matters within the portfolio of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Had we been allowed, many of us would have liked to see legislation such as the Heritage Protection Bill, which would have given him an earlier outing on his party's Front Bench.
	The hon. Gentleman occupied the crease for 36 minutes, during which he did a great deal, rightly, to praise the British Board of Film Classification for its work. However, he failed to praise it also for its work in speech writing-I recognised quite a large chunk of his speech from the excellent briefing notes that the organisation provided to all hon. Members likely to be taking part in the debate. However, he raised some important points, and I do not wish to repeat many of them, given that he occupied the crease for so long. We know why we are here and we know what the problem is.
	As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Minister was generous in not seeking to gain party political advantage on where the error occurred, whether in 1984, in 1993 when the first revisions took place, or in 1994 when the second revisions took place. One might have expected the concern now discovered-about the provisions not having been reported to the European Union-to have been discovered at that time. Nevertheless, let us praise the current civil servants in the Minister's Department for finding the problem and helping the Minister and his predecessor to find a way to deal with it swiftly.
	Swiftness is the essence of why we are here today. It is vital that we get back on to the statute book, as quickly as possible, legislation that provides protection against the sale of inappropriate material to children, and counters the ability of people to sell pirate DVDs and so on. We have all made it clear that we are keen to support the Minister in his desire to fast-track the legislation back on to the statute book and then, if there is sufficient time-I am increasingly concerned about that-to make subsequent amendments to it in light of, for instance, the introduction of the PEGI system for video games. There is support for that on both sides of the House.
	Reference has been made to the case for amending the Video Recordings Act itself, something that we could have done today. It might have delayed proceedings, but it could have been an option. The hon. Member for Wantage made a point about some of his party's proposals for changes to the legislation. I would like an assurance that the issues raised will be dealt with in the Digital Economy Bill, so that there will not be a need to amend the Bill that is before us.
	I share the concern expressed by the current shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), about DVDs and videos relating to sport, religion and music that do not carry ratings but which often contain material that many of us would think inappropriate, in particular for sale to young people. Such videos include self-mutilation, erotic dancing, sex toys, drug use and so on.
	The Minister's officials have made clear a point that was not picked up by the hon. Member for Wantage. They have said:
	Music, sports or religious videos lose their exemption from classification if they depict sexual activity, mutilation, gross violence or other practices likely to cause offence,
	and that in those circumstances,
	it is for the appropriate enforcement authorities to take action.
	The implication is that there is no need for an amendment, because other bits of legislation could be used to prosecute people distributing such material. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that issue, because it is one that those in probably all parts of the House want to be resolved. My concern is to find out the means by which it is going to be resolved, or whether the Minister believes, as his officials appear to be saying, that there is no problem and that action can be taken under existing legislation.
	I will not dwell on my second point for any length of time, because it has already been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is no longer in his place, despite the fact that the race meeting to which he was hoping to go today has been cancelled because of bad weather. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of the degree of complacency-I choose my words carefully-that the Minister appears to have about people who have already been prosecuted under the Video Recordings Act 1984, which we now understand was not correctly enforced.
	The Minister seemed to imply that the reason why he had been advised that there would be no redress was that people would be too late to make an appeal. However, as the right hon. Gentleman made clear-I think that the hon. Member for Wantage made a similar point-if the legislation was never enforced correctly, we are not talking about an appeal; rather, I suspect that we are talking about a very different legal process. Others have asked, and I, too, would be grateful if the Minister could give us clearer assurances about why he and his officials are correct in this matter.

Keith Vaz: If the law is logical-the Minister will know more than we do about that, because he will have consulted the Attorney-General-and there was, in effect, no conviction because there was no proper legislation, the money from any fines would have to be handed back. If anyone received more than a fine-I am not sure what the penalties are-there would have to be additional compensation.

Don Foster: The right hon. Gentleman makes a compelling point. Indeed, I noticed some months ago that he was reported in one newspaper as saying that
	if the act has never been brought into force, prosecutions under it are void. You cannot prosecute someone and convict them on the basis of legislation that has never been in force.
	That seems very compelling indeed. I confess that I have so far heard nothing from the Minister to assure me that the right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, is wrong.

Edward Vaizey: The right hon. Gentleman is also a distinguished lawyer.

Don Foster: The right hon. Gentleman is distinguished in many regards, but we will leave it to the equally distinguished, relatively new Minister to come up with an answer to those questions.
	I want to pick up a point that I mentioned in an intervention and to take it a stage further. As I have said, the Minister rightly praised the many responsible retailers and producers who have continued to behave as if the 1984 Act were still in force. I add my congratulations to them. However, he also pointed out that there are some problems developing. The first, which I mentioned earlier, is that the number of firms seeking classification has fallen dramatically. Year on year to September last year, the reduction was 11 per cent., bearing in mind that for most of the year it was assumed that the 1984 Act was in force. It is therefore not surprising that by October the figure was 20 per cent. or that by the middle of November it was 38 per cent. There was therefore a significant reduction in the number of people who wanted their material classified.

Edward Vaizey: Is the hon. Gentleman reading from the BBFC briefing?

Don Foster: Indeed, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because when he made that very point earlier, I looked at the briefing and intervened on him. He is absolutely right.
	The other point, which has not been touched on so far, is that as I understand it-from the same, excellent brief from the BBFC-a number of councils and their trading standards officers are being pursued through the courts for carrying out what they thought in good faith were statutory obligations under the VRA. Clearly they were wrong: if the VRA was not in force and they were seeking to prosecute people for breaches of a non-existent Act, one can understand that those people might be aggrieved and seek redress from them. My question for the Minister, therefore, is, what assistance are the Government providing to local authorities in that position?
	The third point that has already been touched on-again, by the Minister and others-is about the large and growing number of examples of places around the country where breaches, as they would have been if the law had been in force, of the VRA are taking place. The Minister cited Bournemouth, Conwy and Milton Keynes, while the hon. Member for Wantage referred to a number of other places. In Cheltenham, for example, law enforcement officers cannot pursue a newsagent selling R18 and unrated porn DVDs that are displayed above an ice cream display cabinet. In Manchester, trading standards officers have dropped three VRA cases involving 3,000 videos.
	However, there are two examples that I want to draw to the Minister's attention in particular. The first is from Powys, where trading standards officers are unable to pursue seven cases of under-age video games sales. The other example is from Brent, where trading standards officers are unable to prosecute three high street stores for selling age-restricted video games to children. In both cases, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we are particularly concerned about the sale of inappropriate material to under-age young people.
	Where those prosecutions have been dropped, I wonder whether the Department has taken note of its own explanatory notes, which point out that, even with the 1984 Act no longer on the statute book, there are other bits of legislation, such as the Obscene Publications Act 1959, that in certain circumstances could be used in respect of the sale of material to under-age people. Being interested in that point, I looked at the equally excellent briefing produced by the Library. In paragraph 2.2 of that briefing, the Minister will find the following reference to how the 1959 Act might be used in such circumstances:
	The 1959 Act proscribes the distribution, circulation, sale, the giving or loan of obscene material. A point to make here is that at least some successful prosecutions under the 1984 Act could well have been made under the 1959 Act: pornographic material that might be legally supplied to an adult could be obscene if given to a child.
	The briefing then quotes the case law on that issue, but my question is, given that there are, and will continue to be, outstanding cases where prosecutions could not now be taken forward under the re-established VRA, will the Department seek to provide support to those local authorities concerned, to see whether they could use other bits of existing legislation on the statue book to help bring prosecutions against those who have sought to abuse the loophole created by the error made back in 1984?
	I made it clear-I repeat the point now-that the Minister is absolutely right to get the Bill on to the statute book as quickly as possible, in order to return the protection that the VRA brings and enable the BBFC and all the enforcement authorities to continue their excellent work to date. For that reason, we give the Minister our full support and hope that we get the Bill through quickly today.

John Whittingdale: It is a pleasure to follow all four previous speakers in what has been a remarkably harmonious debate. I do not intend to change that. This is an important measure, and I welcome the fact that the Government have moved so swiftly to close the loophole that has been identified. I will not dwell on how it came about, but I merely observe that the Government are very fond of blaming almost every ill in society on the actions of the previous Government, and this is one of the very few examples where there may be some merit in that claim.
	I hope that the Minister will address the questions raised by the previous speakers about the consequences of the loophole, because I share their concern about the status of those who have been convicted over the course of the past 25 years and the possibility of their bringing actions for what now appear to have been unlawful convictions. I hope that he will spend a little more time on that subject when he responds.
	I wish to make a few observations about the Video Recordings Act 1984. I always approach any such legislation with some suspicion, as I am fundamentally opposed to censorship. I believe that in a free society it is up to adults to choose what they wish to see, but there are two important qualifications to that. The first is that there will always be some material that is so unacceptable in its violent or explicitly sexual content that it is deemed to be damaging to people to view it. I accept that, and some examples have been given in the debate.
	I shall return to that matter, but perhaps more important is the fact that while adults are free to choose, we have always accepted that children require protection. I join right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of the BBFC. It is in the area of age classification that some of the most difficult decisions have to be taken. The film that required perhaps more cuts than any other, some time ago now, was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, because the distributor was keen that it should be given a certificate that meant children were able to see it. The BBFC felt that it contained inappropriate material, and there was lengthy negotiation. A lot of the controversy about films such as The Dark Knight and Casino Royale is about whether they should appropriately be 12 or 15.
	The virtue of the 1984 Act was that it extended that protection, which already existed in cinemas, to viewing in the home. The Minister gave the statistics on the extent to which viewing in the home has taken off in the past 20 years. When the Act was originally introduced back in 1984, it was accompanied by a degree of what one can only call hysteria about video nasties, and it is worth reflecting on what has happened to some of the most notorious examples of films that were widely cited at that time.
	The then Minister, Mr. David Mellor, named three films in the course of the debate. The first was The Driller Killer, which was banned after the passage of the 1984 Act but then released uncut in 2002, and last night I checked and found that it is available on Amazon for £3.98. The second was Zombie Flesh Eaters. That, too, was banned under the Act but then released uncut in 2005 and can now be found on Amazon at £5.98. The third was I Spit On Your Grave, which was also on the list of prosecutable movies until 2001 but was then released, although with substantial cuts made by the BBFC, and is now widely available. Perhaps the most remarkable example is a film that was on the Director of Public Prosecutions' list of films that were banned, Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead, which at the time was regarded as wholly unacceptable but, indicating how tastes change, two years ago was given away free with copies of  The Sun as a promotional move.
	There is no question but that tastes change and we have become more liberal, which I welcome. However, as I said, there will always be films that go beyond what is generally regarded as acceptable. The Minister mentioned one particular film, Grotesque. Two films were banned by the BBFC in 2008. The first was Murder-Set-Pieces, described as having scenes in which
	a psychopathic sexual serial killer...is seen raping, torturing and murdering his victims.
	The second has the unlikely title of The Texas Vibrator Massacre-I leave its contents to the imagination of hon. Members. I shall return to those two films in a moment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) made the important point that there are loopholes in the existing legislation, which existed for good reasons at the time. It was not regarded as possible that a video concerning music or sport could be unacceptable. That loophole has undoubtedly been exploited. I hosted a dinner that the BBFC gave in the House just before Christmas, at which it showed us examples of some of the material that is now available in music videos and sports games that does not require certification because of the loophole in the 1984 Act. I understand why the Government did not feel able to address that matter in the Bill, but I share the wish that has been expressed that the loophole should be closed, and I hope that it will be in the Digital Economy Bill.
	The second main point that I wish to make is that at the time of the passage of the 1984 Act, the world was completely different. Mr. Graham Bright, the Member who moved Second Reading, said that he defined a video recording as
	a video tape or video disc. It is thus a physical product.-[ Official Report, 11 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 525.]
	Of course, it is now not necessarily a physical product. More and more video is being made available through online distribution, which at the time perhaps could not even have been conceived. We are seeking to address that through moves such as those by the BBFC to impose a voluntary system of regulation, but the films that we are concerned about are now very widely available. I return to the two that I mentioned, Murder-Set-Pieces and The Texas Vibrator Massacre. I checked last night and found that both those films are widely available through file sharing sites. An internet search for either with the words download or bit torrent will bring up any number of sites from which one can obtain them. Equally, they are available through cyberlockers. Both are on Megaupload and RapidShare and can be accessed without any attempt to verify the age of the person downloading them. There is serious concern about how we can continue to protect young people when it is now so easy to obtain such films.
	We will debate the matter at greater length when we come to the measures against piracy through illegal file sharing that the Government are proposing to take in the Digital Economy Bill. It is worth remembering that it is not just protection of copyright that is at stake when we consider file sharing. There is equally the concern that it is being used to circumvent the protections that the House has put in place. In the most extreme cases, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, child pornography is being widely distributed through illegal file sharing. That is another reason why I share with other hon. Members the view that it is important that we get the Digital Economy Bill on to the statute book.
	Having said that, I agree with the Minister that the majority of distribution of video content will still be through physical product for the foreseeable future, so it is certainly important that the Bill should be passed today and that we should reinstate the protections that we thought were already in place. However, there is a danger that we will be seen to be bolting the front door when the back door is wide open, and we will have to consider that in future.
	That leads me to the more general conclusion that I suspect that there is nothing that this House can do to legislate to prevent the distribution of material online from sites that may be located on the other side of the world. When we consider what it is appropriate for people to view, we must remember that that is a matter for adults to decide. The most effective means that we can have to protect children is for parents to exercise responsibility, watch carefully what their children are doing and ensure that they are not obtaining access to content that could be damaging to them. I support the Bill, but I fear that it is beginning to look increasingly old-fashioned and outmoded given the extraordinary pace of development throughout the video sector.

Si�n Simon: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate-and what a pleasure it has been. What a bijou gathering of wisdom and experience this is. Two Select Committee Chairmen, the venerable battler from Bath and my old friend from Wantage have all, in their different ways, made valuable, insightful and often entertaining contributions. Would that it were always thus.
	We have already congratulated the British Board of Film Classification on the job that it does, by which we meant the job of classifying films, but I think I ought also to congratulate it on the job that it does in lobbying Members of Parliament and providing briefing for these debates. Rarely can the entire participating body in a debate have been so thoroughly and extensively briefed by a single organisation. I visited the BBFC's offices fairly recently and heard its arguments about one or two aspects that we may not see in exactly the same way, but I think we are in accord on most of the issues that Members, in their different ways, have discussed today: that is, the central issues. Let me deal with a few of them, hopefully not leaving out too much but also not using up too much time.
	The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) could not quite resist making the anti-European point that the 1984 Act was clearly a single market liberalisation measure leading up to the Single European Act of 1985-that crowning, triumphant, extraordinary piece of Thatcherite European legislation that is the rock on which the European single market is founded, and the basis on which it continues to exist and derive so much prosperity for our countries and our Union. He mentioned several times-and other Members mentioned it as well-that the Cabinet Office had been looking into the issues. I cannot give him any more detail of who in the Cabinet Office has been doing what, but I can tell him that the need to ensure that the omission was an isolated incident and will never happen again is being taken very seriously.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who praised the zeal and efficiency of the DCMS officials who finally discovered the omission and set us on the road to where we have arrived today. If we are not keen-as I am not-to get into the business of allocating blame for causing the problem in the first place, I am sure we can all unite in wholehearted praise for the people who identified it and are helping us to solve it.
	The issue of appeals and past convictions is a difficult one. It is not as simple as some Members seem to think. None of the questions involved has been tested in court. To date, the courts have dealt with no attempts to set aside past prosecutions. Successful prosecutions issued before the failure to refer the 1984 Act to the Commission were dealt with through due process, and as such they still stand. The courts are very reluctant to set aside convictions made years ago when the offence was proved and the defendant found guilty under an Act of Parliament passed by the House, only the enforceability of which has been invalidated by a technicality. The Act remains an Act of Parliament. It remains in force. Only the ability of the authorities to enforce is affected by the failure to notify under the technical standards directive.
	We think that claims for compensation are very unlikely to succeed. There is no automatic right to compensation, and any legal right to it in these circumstances would be unprecedented. I understand the prism through which Members have viewed the issue. The hon. Member for Wantage claimed that I had been given bad advice. He described the move from the current boxed physical product world to the online world, and said that he was minded to give me better advice on that than I was currently receiving.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend has taken definitive legal advice from the Attorney-General, has he not? The fact that the granting of compensation in such circumstances is unprecedented does not mean that it is not right. Will he confirm that he was given that advice?

Si�n Simon: I have taken a great deal of my advice from my officials. I cannot tell my right hon. Friend from whom-in which other parts of Government and which parts of the Government Legal Service-they took advice, but their advice to me has been very clear. Although it is impossible to be certain, there is very little doubt on the issue.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend's officials may not be legally qualified. They may be the greatest people in the world, but my hon. Friend is a Minister in the Government and the Attorney-General is the chief Law Officer. I am not trying to trip my hon. Friend up; I am merely trying to establish the facts. If there were a problem relating to legality, surely the Department would have contacted the Attorney-General. It is not a secret. A question could have been tabled to the Attorney-General. Did the Government go to the Attorney-General and ask for her advice?

Si�n Simon: As I have just told my right hon. Friend, I took advice from my officials. By my officials I mean the legal officials in the DCMS. As I have said, their advice was very clear. They also made clear to me that they had taken plenty of legal advice from many different parts of the Government, and that, although there could not be certainty when there was no precedent, there was very little doubt. I am sorry, but I cannot tell my right hon. Friend whether the officials questioned the Attorney-General personally and specifically.
	I am not sure whether I have fully covered the question of appeals and compensation, but in the absence of further interventions, I shall proceed to answer the questions about the potential for insertion of what might be described as the PEGI clauses of the Digital Economy Bill, which introduce the PEGI European classification system for video games in this country into this Bill.
	One of the fundamental reasons why the House has considered the Bill, and why Opposition parties in both Houses have indicated that they consider it appropriate to fast-track it, is that we are not amending an existing piece of legislation which has been in force for 25 years. If the two main Opposition parties had come to us in advance and said We think it important to include the PEGI clauses, we might have been able to discuss the matter, but I do not think that that happened. We needed to act swiftly, and, legitimately, to use the special fast-track procedure. Part of the reason for concertina-ing the House's usual precautionary procedures was that we were making no change whatsoever. The point is that we need to get the legislation repealed and revived so that it can be amended during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill.

Don Foster: I apologise for asking a question the answer to which I should really know. I accept the Minister's point as to why the Government have not adopted the PEGI system amendment in this Bill so that we could fast-track it, but can he give me an absolute assurance that, if necessary, the appropriate consultation with the EU is taking place in respect of the PEGI amendment that is being discussed in another place?

Si�n Simon: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance-that is happening, for sure.

John Whittingdale: Is it the Government's intention to accept the other amendment that has been tabled to the Digital Economy Bill, which would remove the exemption for sport and music videos?

Si�n Simon: As things currently stand, we are not minded to accept that amendment, although I am not averse to talking about it. I take note of the uniformity of view on that matter, on the Labour Benches anyway. However, I know from my recent visit to the BBFC that it takes the strong view that we should make this change, and the BBFC is very influential in these matters.

Edward Vaizey: I should remind the Minister that on Tuesday one of his own Back Benchers, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), is introducing a ten-minute Bill that would bring about this exemption, so there is all-party support for it.

Si�n Simon: I take that point. I do not have a strong, dogmatic view on this. I have considered it, and on balance I have come down on the side that says that given that it is about where we draw the line, the vast majority of content in music and sport videos does not need to be classified in this way, to the extent that it would be an intolerable burden. That is a reasonable position, and that is where I stand. We are not currently minded to accept an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill to that end, although I do not take a dogmatic view on it.

Don Foster: During my speech I asked the Minister to clarify whether he believes that if such an amendment is not tabled there is still scope for prosecution of that type of material under other legislation.

Si�n Simon: The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) kindly referred to that. There is still scope for prosecution under the existing legislation because the exemptions apply only up to a certain level. There are several categories of content, at a certain point of which the exemption lapses. Roughly speaking, something like an 18-level content in a music video would need to be classified.
	Hon. Gentlemen mentioned one or two examples of what seem like misclassifications. However, that is the road of argument by second-guessing, anecdote and example, and it does not take us very far. The issue would be about whether the video had been classified appropriately. The power already exists to classify extreme or 18-ish-rated music videos. Their comments are reasonable, but the fundamental point is that the place for us to have this discussion-I have no doubt that we will do so at great length and in considerable detail-is in the Committee proceedings on the Digital Economy Bill.
	Several hon. Gentlemen-including the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, with particular erudition and wisdom-talked about the internet and a future in which it will be incredibly difficult to regulate and legislate for these things. I take all those points but merely restate what I said in my opening remarks. The boxed market is still huge and will be so for a considerable period of time, and that is why it is so important that we use this procedure to close the loophole so that we protect the public in general, but particularly children, from the irresponsible retailing of unsuitable and inappropriate material.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill  accordingly  read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Video Recordings Bill

Considered in Committee (Order, this day)
	[Sir Michael Lord  in the Chair]

Clause 1
	  
	Repeal and revival of provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Si�n Simon: If the House will permit me, I will omit, in these circumstances, the usual courtesies attached to the beginning of a Committee stage, and move straight on to speak to the clause, which is at the heart of the Bill.
	The purpose of the clause, as stated in subsection (1)(a), is to repeal all the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984, which should have been notified to the European Commission in 1984. Subsection (1)(b) then immediately revives all those provisions, which have now been notified to the European Commission. As a result, it makes them enforceable again in law. The Bill and the 1984 Act were formally notified to the Commission in accordance with the technical standards and regulations directive, and it is necessary for the 1984 Act to be repealed and revived in this way to ensure that all its provisions are fully enforceable again. The failure to notify the 1984 Act was a procedural error under the terms of the directive. The purpose of the Bill is to correct the procedural irregularities arising from that omission and to restore the important public protections that the 1984 Act contains and that the public have come to expect regarding the sale of videos and DVDs.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	  
	Short title, commencement and extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Si�n Simon: Clause 2 merely sets out the short title, commencement and territorial extent of the Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule

Transitional provision

Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

Si�n Simon: The schedule sets out the transitional provisions whereby a bridge is built between the 1984 Act spanning the lacuna of the time when the Act has not been enforceable, and into the future, when the status quo ante is restored. It also ensures that all consequent legislation and administration is kept in balance with the new legislation and the previous Act.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Schedule accordingly agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Bill reported, without amendment.
	 Third Reading

Si�n Simon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker- [Interruption.] Understandably, I am being ribbed from sedentary positions by Opposition Members about what I might say about the Bill on Third Reading, given that we have considered it in so many stages so recently.

Don Foster: Will the Minister use this opportunity to answer the questions asked on Second Reading in respect of advice and support being given to local authorities?

Si�n Simon: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that; I did fail to answer that question, although not intentionally. Considerable advice and support are being given to local authorities. The Crown Prosecution Service has produced comprehensive guidance on all the relevant issues for local and trading standards administrations, and we are confident that that guidance will equip them to deal with the situation appropriately.
	This Third Reading is a conclusion to the Bill. I need only repeat my gratitude to Members on both sides of the House, and particularly to the Opposition parties, which have supported us wholeheartedly as we have used this procedure to get the measure through the House very quickly. We have done that to restore the safeguards for people of all ages, but young people in particular, so that they are not harmed and outraged by the unscrupulous sale of offensive and inappropriate material.
	In conclusion, as the Bill moves to the other place, I add a plea to Members there: debate on this Bill is not the appropriate time for discussion of the Digital Economy Bill, or even the detailed provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984. This is an emergency, fast-track measure that, by its nature, could not be fast-tracked if it were amended.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) looks quizzical. In case he was quizzicaling at me, I should say that if the Bill were amended it would have to be renotified in draft again, and that would take another three months.
	We need to do this quickly. We are grateful for the support that we have had across the House in getting it done quickly. I commend the Bill to the other place in that same spirit of urgency and seriousness.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill  accordingly  read the Third time and passed.

Sittings of the House

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That-
	(1) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
	In paragraph (4) the word 'eight' shall be substituted for the word 'thirteen' in line 42 and in paragraph (5) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 44;
	(2) Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:
	In paragraph (2) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 21; and
	(3) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 29 January; 5 and 26 February; 5 and 12 March; 23 and 30 April; and 7 May. -(David Wright.)

Peter Bone: I beg to move amendment (a), line 1, leave out from 'That' to end and add-
	'Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 8, 15, 22 and 29 January; 5 and 26 February; 5, 12, 19 and 26 March; 23 and 30 April; and 7 May.'.
	It is a great pleasure, at long last, to get to this debate. I was rather surprised by the abrupt manner in which the Government moved their motion, which it has been clear for a considerable length of time that they do not want to discuss. Now that they have eventually been forced to discuss the matter, it has been moved formally. That is an extraordinary abrogation of their responsibility.
	Getting this motion to the Floor of the House has taken an enormous amount of time and effort. It was originally listed on the Order Paper on 23 November 2009. On 30 November 2009, my amendment was on the Order Paper, and since that day the motion has been listed at the end of business every day with no chance of debate; it has been objected to by Members across the House each and every day.
	Why on earth have Members had to object every evening to force this lame-duck Government to debate something so important to Parliament? What we have on the Order Paper today is an alteration to Standing Orders, particularly to Standing Order No. 14. I shall briefly remind the House what that Standing Order is about-the allocation of time in the House. Principally, it refers to the time that the Government have to organise business. Paragraph (1) says:
	Save as provided in this order, government business shall have precedence at every sitting.
	So except in relation to the other business referred to by two parts of Standing Order No. 14, the Government always control business in the House. That is why we have not been able to debate this motion before.
	Standing Order No. 14(2) relates to Opposition days. That has no particular bearing on private Members' business except in one respect. It says:
	two Friday sittings shall be deemed equivalent to a single sitting.
	In other words, a Friday is looked on as a half day. In theory, business on Fridays starts at 9.30 am. However, in effect, right at the beginning of the day there is always a motion that the House should sit in private; on occasion I have been responsible for that myself. That involves a Division, which takes up 20 minutes, so we are probably talking about only four and a half hours of business on a Friday. It is that four and a half hours, mentioned in the Government's motion and in my amendment, that I want to discuss today.
	The Standing Order protects Parliament and Members of the House by giving 13 Fridays for private Members' business. There is no dispute about that; Standing Order No. 14(4) states:
	Private Members' bills shall have precedence over government business on thirteen Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House.
	There are no ifs, buts or ands: 13 Fridays in each Session are to be appointed for that purpose by the House. The problem is that at the moment the House does not have the power to do that; only the Government can bring those 13 days to this House.
	There is no mention of applying a pro rata principle to those 13 days because there may be a general election in a particular Session.

Barbara Keeley: I understand that the hon. Gentleman was elected in 2005, as was I, so he may not remember that it has been standard practice, during parliamentary terms that run to a fifth Session, to pro-rata or reduce the number of days for private Members' Bills. Motions with a similar effect were agreed by the House in both 1991-92 and 1996-97, having been proposed by the then Conservative Administrations. Does the hon. Gentleman want to comment on the fact that that has historically been the case since that time?

Peter Bone: I anticipated that that would be the only reasoned objection put forward by the Government. Of course, to say that precedent is the reason why we should do everything the same is to make a pretty hopeless argument; according to that principle, there would be no point in our turning up at all. The hon. Lady has failed to mention the fact that Parliament's situation is totally different now from what it was a year or so ago. Parliament has fallen in the esteem of this country, and one of the reasons for that is the all-powerful Executive. The hon. Lady talked about private Members' business in previous years. I was going to talk about that later, but it seems appropriate to mention it now.
	The House of Commons Library has produced a helpful booklet called The Success of Private Members' Bills, which discusses the number of private Members' Bills that have gone through the House and actually become law. As the House will be aware, in the House of Commons there are three ways in which a private Member may get a Bill into law. One is through the ballot, another is by presentation under Standing Order No. 57, and the last is through the ten-minute rule.
	In the period that the hon. Lady referred to, under the last Conservative Government-I am not trying to make a party political point here, but she did refer to it-49 private Members' Bills became law. So far, according to the Library, just eight have become law in this Parliament. That indicates that the Executive are exerting more and more control to get less and less private Members' business through the House. In fact, since the 2005-06 Session no presentation Bills and no ten-minute Bills have become law, whereas under the Conservative Government seven presentation Bills and seven ten-minute Bills became law. That shows that over that period there has been a dramatic decline in the level of success of private Members' Bills in this House.
	That is because the Executive have become increasingly powerful, increasingly dominant and increasingly determined to get their own way, which is one of the things that people have objected to. Many people have said that Parliament is not relevant any more because the Executive just steamroller through what they want. Those statistics are a clear indication of that tendency.
	One way to redress the balance is to have more time in Parliament for private Members' business: time has to be provided for it. I have already argued that the Standing Order says that 13 Fridays must be provided per Session for such business, which, as I have also argued, equates to six and a half normal days' debate. However, the motion before us, quite unnecessarily, reduces the number of days available in this Session for private Members' Bills. My point is that there is no need to do that.
	My amendment would restore the 13 days that the Standing Order says the Government have to provide. It does nothing more than that; it just provides the 13 days, which are all Fridays. It does not adopt the Wright report suggestion of moving some private Members' days to Wednesdays. I have not suggested that any of the sitting Fridays should be in the spring recess-or, for that matter, in the anticipated Easter recess. Of course the Government have not told us when the Easter recess will be, and I am looking to the Deputy Leader of the House to see whether she wants to intervene and enlighten us.

Barbara Keeley: indicated dissent.

Peter Bone: The Government are deliberately and unnecessarily restricting the voice of individual Members of this House in speaking and getting legislation on to the statute book. As far back as 1949, private Members' Bills went through this House. In that year ballot Bill No. 21 got on to the statute book. So the situation has not always been what we have become accustomed to in the last few years-that only the first couple of Bills have any chance. In 1949 Major Simon Ramsay got the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Bill into law, and he came 21st in the ballot.
	I know, however, that this Government believe that everything started in 1997, so let us see whether we can find anything in that era that was low down in the ballot but still got on to the statute book. Interestingly, a Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) got on to the statute book, even though it was No. 19 in the ballot. That cannot be done if the House does not provide time for debate. That was in the 1998-99 Session, so it was in the era since history began. In 1999-2000 the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas)-No. 20 in the ballot-got the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill on to the statute book.
	What we have today is complete chaos, and an unprecedented situation. The Government have refused to announce the days on which private Members' Bills will be heard. On 16 December, we therefore had the ridiculous spectacle of the Members presenting their Bills having no idea on what dates the Second Reading of their private Members' Bills would be allowed to take place. That is unprecedented, and a complete rejection of Parliament by this Executive, who think they can always get their way.

Barbara Keeley: The Members who presented their Bills may have had some idea, because they had seen the dates in the motion tabled by the Leader of the House day after day after day. Those dates were, with I think one exception, the ones that they took forward for their Bills.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady is right-and that was the behind-the-scenes skulduggery. That was the Executive exerting power over Members, saying You will take these dates, even though this House had not agreed to that.
	One Member-the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is in his place-opted to take the next available date, and he was very sensible to do so. If my amendment is approved, his Bill is printed tonight and he lets the Table Office know that he wants to reinstate it, he will have Friday to debate it. So it is not quite correct for the hon. Lady to give the impression that this was a done deal. Yes, other Members were put under pressure. Through that procedure, which is very unfortunate, Members who have chosen their dates cannot move them back. In other words, if my amendment is accepted, Members who have opted for a later date cannot move back to an earlier one.
	I have given some thought to that issue, and it seems clear that under Standing Order. No. 57, on presentation of Bills, it is possible for Members to bring very similar Bills that are already known to this House to the back of the Chair. They could then fill the dates that will become available if my amendment is passed.
	My amendment does not remove any of the dates that the Government have provided, so people who are satisfied with the date they have can stick to it. However, those who want an earlier date would have an opportunity to take one.

Peter Bottomley: Just to make the situation clear to those who will read this debate, my hon. Friend is suggesting that three spare Fridays in January-before the first one that the Government have proposed-are available, along with two in March. Is it not fair to say that the Government could easily have tabled a motion to suspend the rule, and taken a vote on it and on my hon. Friend's amendment, at any stage since Parliament returned for the new Session?

Peter Bone: Indeed; I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
	Let me address this issue in a little depth. It has not been sprung on the Government. They proposed this change in the Standing Orders-the motion before us-on 23 November.
	A number of hon. Members, including me, have outlined the problem that the motion causes. On 26 November, I raised the matter in business questions, pointing out that on that very day the ballot for private Members' Bills was taking place, although nobody knew what dates had been allocated, and that the number of days allocated was set to decrease from 13 to eight. I argued that, in effect, the number had decreased to six because some of the dates that the Government had chosen were so late that clearly the general election would be upon us before they were reached.
	On 10 December, the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is in his place, brought up the issue in business questions when he asked why we were not having a debate on it. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who speaks for the Liberals on business of the House matters and who is also in his place, has also raised this question. He has also raised the issue of the Wright Committee report, which has a number of things to say about the allocation of time for private Members' Bills. I might touch on that issue later, if I have time to do so. At the same business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) brought that matter to the House's attention. I must pass on his apologies for not being here today. He would like to be participating in this debate, but the Government have clearly organised the business so that this debate is occurring at the exact time when he is leading a debate on immigration in Westminster Hall. I hope that he will have an opportunity to participate in this debate later.
	I have also raised a couple of points of order on this issue; on 16 December, I pointed out that with the exception of that in respect of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, the Second Reading dates that were announced were not confirmed. I asked how Members were to know that they would be able to debate their private Members' business on the given day. I also took the opportunity-there seemed to be no other way of bringing this to the House's attention in any form of debate-to raise the matter in the Adjournment debate on 16 December. I was hoping that that would provide the Deputy Leader of the House with the chance to argue the Government's case on this matter, but again they did not take the opportunity to make a defence of their reason for cutting down the voice of Back Benchers. Today, when they had an opportunity to comment on it at the beginning of this debate, all we heard was I beg to move. The situation is ludicrous. There is no defence for it and the Government should be ashamed. They should withdraw their motion, but I doubt whether they will do so.
	Some people must be wondering whether I have some hidden motive, whether I am secretly hoping to get a Bill through or whether I am down the list on the ballot-I am not in the top 20. They might be wondering whether this is a political thing and whether the Tory party wants to get something through. That is hardly the case because only three of the first 12 private Members who came up in the ballot are Conservatives. There is nothing political about this; this is about Parliament having the opportunity to discuss private Members' Bills.
	I am attracted to one or two Bills. I am attracted to the anti-slavery Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and to his work on tackling human trafficking, but that is not the issue here; the issue here is the time available. I am also attracted to a couple of the proposals relating to the Lisbon treaty.
	That leads on nicely to why we must have ample time for debate. There are two reasons to introduce a private Member's Bill. The first is that a Member wishes to change the law. There have been numerous cases where worthy causes have been taken up and put on the statute book, but that can be done only when time is available. Time needs to be available for Second Reading, for the Committee stage and for Third Reading. I am afraid that if this motion is passed today, nobody will get any of their Bills on to the statute book.

Barbara Keeley: As the hon. Gentleman seems to feel so strongly about this allocation of time, can he tell us whether he is implicitly criticising the two previous Conservative Leaders of the House of Commons, who also reduced the number of sitting days in their fifth Sessions? In the 1996-97 Session, the number of sitting days to discuss these matters was also reduced to eight.

Peter Bone: I am certainly not criticising any past Executive or any past political party. This is not about whether there is a Labour Leader of the House or a Conservative one; it is about the power of the Executive to stop private Members getting a say and getting their business through-that is the issue here.

Barbara Keeley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me what the difference is between reducing, on a pro rata basis, the number of days for considering private Members' Bills to eight in the 1996-97 Session, as proposed by the previous Conservative Leader of the House, and this motion. I see no difference.

Peter Bone: I do not wish to criticise people who were in Parliament when I was not if I have no idea about what the situation was at the time. However, as I have said, a lot more private Bills got through under the Conservative Government; the relevant figure is 49. In 1996-97-the period during which the Deputy Leader of the House claims the time available was shortened-14 balloted private Members' Bills got on to the statute book. Whatever arrangements were in place then, there was plenty of time for private Members to get their business through and for Bills to obtain Royal Assent. That just will not happen under the current arrangement. I have outlined the figures, which show that the situation has been hopeless under this Government-I believe that two private Members' Bills got through last year.

Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend has dealt with the Deputy Leader of the House's point in a very fair way. What we have not heard from those on the Government Front Bench, either in an intervention or in a speech, is that the issue is whether 8, 15 and 22 January and 19 and 26 March could usefully be provided for the consideration of private Members' Bills. Perhaps it would be worth my observing that having listened to her I find that she is part of a Government-again, I am not being party political-who have claimed that the historic negatives should no longer rule. Most of their claims have not related to something that did not or did happen in the past; they have said that they have looked at new things. What my hon. Friend is suggesting is a new thing and she has not produced a reason why those five days should not be made available.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, with which I agree entirely. The Government would lose nothing by accepting my amendment, which would merely increase the amount of time that private Members would have available to them to bring business to this House. There are two reasons why private Members bring Bills to this House. As I have discussed, one is to get them into law. I am sure that some of the private Members' Bills that have been proposed by Labour Back Benchers have much merit, but I am worried that those Members will not have enough time to get the Bills into law and that this House will not have an opportunity to discuss them fully.
	The other reason why private Members' Bills come before this House is so that an issue can be debated and the Government must respond on a substantive motion. We hold useful debates in Westminster Hall-I have referred to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering is leading one at this moment-and very useful Adjournment debates, but they are not on motions that could become law. In addition, such debates are short and the half-hour debates tend just to have the relevant Minister and the Back Bencher speaking, so no real debate takes place. By comparison, when a private Member's Bill is considered there is a proper debate in this Chamber and everybody takes part.

Philip Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend wholeheartedly, and he is doing a tremendous job, as ever, of defending the interests of Back-Bench MPs. Would he agree that one such private Member's Bill that is tabled for discussion in the next few weeks is that promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell), the European Union Membership (Referendum) Bill? That is an issue about which many of our constituents are concerned. If the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) does not succeed today, the chances of that important issue being debated will probably be lost.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I will not be led down the path of arguing the merits or otherwise of being in this horrendous European Union. It would be wrong of me to do that. However, he is quite right to point out the problem about the debate. He talked about the European Union Membership (Referendum) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell). It is listed provisionally for Second Reading on 26 February. There is no problem with that, except for the fact that it is listed as motion 4 on that day and will never be reached.
	More interestingly, and to be non-party political, let us take another Bill as an example: the Lisbon Treaty (Referendum) Bill, which also has much merit and is promoted by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). It is also listed on 26 February; it is motion 3. Again, that will not be debated, or at least is unlikely to be reached.
	Many issues are brought up by Members who want a debate rather than necessarily to get the law changed. They need time for the debates and on occasion the debates are embarrassing for those who sit on the Front Benches of the political parties. I dare say that the Lisbon Treaty (Referendum) Bill will certainly be embarrassing for the Government-

Philip Davies: And the Lib Dems.

Peter Bone: It will be very embarrassing for the Liberal Democrats and it will be interesting for those on my Front Bench.
	Irrespective of the issue, we could consider in such a way all 20 Bills that have been proposed. The Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill sounds like a pretty important Bill and is listed as the first to be discussed on 26 February. Why not debate that Bill this Friday? Why not allow the time for the arguments to be heard and, if it is the will of the House, for it to get its Second Reading, to go to Committee and to come back to the House for Third Reading? I just do not understand why the Government have taken this view-

Barbara Keeley: rose-

Peter Bone: I am going to learn.

Barbara Keeley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is challenging the principle of having some non-sitting Fridays. On this side of the House, we believe that Members need time to discharge their duties in their constituencies as well as in this House. The system of non-sitting Fridays was introduced, I understand, on the recommendation of the former Conservative Chief Whip, Lord Jopling, and has been widely welcomed since its introduction by Members in all parties as they have that time to discharge duties in their constituencies. Given the difficulties that have gripped our constituencies -certainly mine-over the last couple of days due to the extreme weather, it is pretty important that Members should have the chance to get back there.

Peter Bone: Fridays are important for constituency work, but I do constituency work every day of the week. We are talking about 13 Fridays a Session, and, basically, only the mornings of those days. I do not think that the hon. Lady's argument washes. She failed to say that on a Friday it is only Members who are interested in a particular Bill who turn up, and not the whole House. If the hon. Lady can guarantee that the whole House will turn up on the eight days that she has suggested, so it would be her motion that would give them the other Fridays off, I might be inclined to think again about the motion. Of course, that is not at all what the motion is about. The motion is about restricting the voice of this House.
	The hon. Lady's helpful intervention leads me to Rebuilding the House, the first report of the 2008-09 Session by the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons. It talks about the timing of private Members' Bills and states:
	The House should be responsible for ensuring that merely procedural devices cannot obstruct Private Members' Bills, and that they are brought to a decision.
	The Government are using the procedural device of suspending Standing Orders to obstruct private Members' Bills.
	The shadow Leader of the House also argued that there is a problem with Fridays. Rebuilding the House suggests in paragraph 193 that Wednesday evenings could be used for private Members' Bills. I have not sought to go that far, but it would overcome entirely the hon. Lady's objection that too many Fridays will be used up. If I could have a guarantee from the shadow Leader of the House before the end of the debate that instead of using the Fridays that are free, they will put the extra five days' business on Wednesdays, I would more than happily withdraw my amendment and accept the shadow Leader of the House's words-

George Young: She is the Deputy Leader of the House.

Peter Bone: I apologise. Because of her ability, I just assumed that she was Leader. As Deputy Leader of the House, she might want to take some advice before responding. I hope that at some stage we will hear the Government's view on the motion. To say that they have been silent is not quite correct, but I beg to move is hardly a good enough argument for a motion that has been on the Order Paper since 23 November and has been objected to by Members of the House on every single evening since.
	I have not gone as far as the Committee, but have accepted the current situation, because for some reason the Committee's report has not been debated by the House.
	Let me move on to my amendment. It is straightforward and restores the 13 days. It says that
	Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 8, 15, 22 and 29 January; 5 and 26 February-
	that suggests that I have not called for debate on every single Friday, as the hon. Lady suggested. In fact, I was very careful not to interfere with the spring recess. I also selected
	5, 12, 19 and 26 March
	and I have not suggested another private Members' Bills day until 23 April. Although I do not know the dates for the Easter recess, I know when Easter is so I have allowed for those Fridays, too. I think the hon. Lady was being slightly harsh on me in suggesting that I had picked on every Friday.
	I have not heard the argument, but perhaps it will be made at some stage, that there is not enough time for Bills to be printed and prepared for a debate on 8 January-this Friday. However, we already know that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome could get his Bill then and he could probably have a whole sitting on it, so it is possible. The reason that the Bills have not been printed is that the Government failed under Standing Order No. 14 to provide the dates that they said they would provide and which they are required to do by Standing Orders.
	I take what might be an old-fashioned view that Standing Orders exist to protect Parliament-I am sure that is correct-and particularly to protect Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Opposition Members of Parliament against the power of the Executive. Year after year we have seen the Government-the Executive-take more and more power, no matter which party has been in control. This year is a turning point. Parliament has been brought into disrepute by what happened last year. People are demanding that Parliament assert itself and become more independent of the Executive. It is amazing that in a year when people are saying that, the Government propose to cut the time for Back-Bench debate.
	The Government would lose nothing by providing those extra Fridays. All it would mean is that a Minister would have to turn up on a Friday five more times than is suggested by the Government. Although this is a small piece of the overall reform of Parliament, it is exceptionally important that the Government realise that cutting off difficult debate is not in their interest. They have made that mistake time and again since I have been in Parliament. By reducing the amount of time allowed through programme motions, debate has not carried on and parts of Bills have not even been scrutinised. That is a failure of the Government. The more an item is debated, the more the Government can put their point of view.

Barbara Keeley: I come back to the question that I have already put to the hon. Gentleman. Are members of his Front-Bench team in agreement with the points that he is making? He keeps speaking about cutting off debate and denying Back-Bench Members the chance for debate, but we have allocated private Members' Bill days pro rata in a short Session, exactly as was done in 1996-97 and 1991-92, under a Conservative Administration. If he chooses to condemn an Administration for that, I invite him to condemn earlier ones too, and to tell the House whether members of his Front-Bench team agree with what he is doing today.

Peter Bone: If I stood up and said that my Front-Bench team agreed with me and that I had the approval of the Whips Office, with my reputation no one would believe me. It would be wholly wrong. I have no idea what members of my Front-Bench team will say on the matter. I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire will have an opportunity to speak. He has made it clear in the House that he was amazed and dismayed at the failure of the Government to bring the motion before the House before Christmas so that we could have a debate.
	In answer to the hon. Lady, I refer to Standing Orders. I have the 2009 edition, which has not changed in relation to Standing Order No. 14. It says that the House must allocate 13 days in each Session for private Members' Bills on Fridays. I shall read Standing Order No. 14(4), which in my booklet is on page 16. It states:
	Private Members' bills shall have precedence over government business on thirteen Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House.
	That Standing Order could go on and say, as the Deputy Leader of the House would like it to say, that that should be pro rata if there is to be a general election in that Session. Standing Orders do not say that. If the Government wanted to change Standing Orders to say that, they would have to provide that in the following Session, which would be a longer Session, more than 13 Fridays would be allowed. But that is not what the Standing Order says. Why not? It is because of the ballot. I have put in for the ballot every year since I entered the House and come nowhere near the top 20. If one is in that top 20, one expects to have an opportunity to get one's voice heard. That is what the Standing Orders are about, and that is what the Government just do not get.

David Wilshire: I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the House for having been at a Transport Committee sitting, but I have watched the annunciator screen with some admiration, thinking of the pearls of wisdom that my hon. Friend will have been delivering while I have not been in the Chamber. He rightly said that Standing Orders say that there shall be 13 sitting Fridays-not that if the Session is longer, there should be more than 13. They say exactly 13. I have been a Member for 20-plus years and have, therefore, sat through long Sessions and short Sessions. On every occasion that I have ever known a Session to go beyond its length of time, there never have been more than 13 such sittings. Not only do the Standing Orders not say that there must be more, there have not been any more. Is my hon. Friend aware of any occasion when there have been more than 13? That is the most powerful part of the argument: if it has to be 13, it has to be 13.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, and that is exactly the point. Standing Orders are absolutely clear: 13 Fridays are set aside for private Members' business in each Session. They do not talk about reducing the number in a short Session or extending the number in a long Session. We cannot extend the number of Fridays for private Members' business unless we suspend Standing Orders, and I return to my original argument that Standing Orders exist to protect this Parliament and this House against the power of the Executive. I have yet to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House why the surplus Fridays that we are not using before a general election can be held cannot be used. She has been keen to pop up and down to intervene, but she has never answered that question.
	I have said that our having had to wait until today to debate this motion is ridiculous, and that private Members have presented their Bills without knowing the date of their Second Reading. The elephant in the House, however, is that we know that there will be a general election, although not when that general election will be called.
	If Standing Orders say that 13 Fridays should be set aside, it is surely logical, in a year when there will be a general election, to take the first Friday available and run things on from there. That would give more Members the chance of a Second Reading at which their Bills might be debated, and it would give their Bills more chance of going into and coming out of Committee. The hon. Lady keeps referring to previous Executives, saying, They cut the number of sittings down, but if we look at the statistics we find that many more Bills got through: 49 in the final Parliament of the Conservative Government, against eight under this control-freak Executive.
	I do not want to take up a lot of time on what I believe to be an exceptionally important matter, because I know about the adverse weather conditions.

Christopher Chope: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having been present at the beginning of his contribution; I was at a sitting of the Procedure Committee. I have the privilege of being a co-signatory to his amendment, however, and not having listened to the whole debate, I wondered whether he would be minded to put his proposed change to the vote. If he were so minded, I would be very supportive of it.

Peter Bone: rose-

David Heath: A short reprise?

Peter Bone: I am certainly not going to go over what I have said, because that would be to unfair on other hon. Members who want to speak. However, the issue is very simple: my amendment would restore the 13 Fridays. The trouble is that Standing Orders provide us with a problem, because they say that the House must bring forward 13 days. However, one cannot bring anything forward in this House; the Executive do so.
	It may be that in future the reforms proposed in Rebuilding the House bring about a House business committee, and I sincerely hope that there will be such a committee and that this problem will never happen again. We have had to wait until today, however, and I think it was only the fact that the Government eventually realised that somebody would turn up at the end of every day's business to object that forced them to have a debate. If Standing Orders are to be changed or suspended on a matter so important as restricting the amount of time for private Members' Bills, we must have a little debate on it. We cannot just allow that to get through on the nod.
	Here lies the failure of this Executive. This would never have happened under a different Executive. It would probably not have happened even with a different Prime Minister of the same party. It seems to me that we are making a grave mistake if we allow this motion to go through today.
	In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I do seek to put my amendment to the vote. Before closing, I just want to make it clear again to all hon. Members that supporting my amendment will comply with the Standing Orders and restore 13 Fridays for private Members' Bills, while in no way affecting Members who have already selected the days for their Second Reading, as all the days that they have selected are covered by my amendment. The amendment would add and free up five more days for ordinary Members to have a chance to instigate legislation and either hear the arguments debated or get the matter raised and eventually introduced into law.

David Wilshire: I am very pleased to hear that my hon. Friend wants to put the matter to a vote. In reply to an intervention by the Minister, he quite properly said that he was a Back Bencher and did not wish to best-guess what any Front Benchers might think. If I understand it correctly, however, all three main parties have said that they hope to see more power for Parliament and more power and responsibility for Back Benchers in future. It is quite safe to say that all the parties' Front Benchers also think that. By putting his amendment to the vote, is not my hon. Friend offering the House an opportunity for Back Benchers to indicate that they support the view of their Front Benchers? In voting for the amendment, one is voting for more power for Back Benchers to have the time to which they are entitled. The vote is crucial; it provides a chance to see who agrees with their own Front-Bench team.

Peter Bone: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, in which he makes a valid point. All the Front-Bench teams signed up to Rebuilding the House, the Wright report, and it was the Government who drew up a motion for that report to come into being. What they have unfortunately not done is debate the report. That again is an amazing situation. A vote would be a little test, would it not, for the House today. I am sure that all parties are going to allow a free vote; I cannot believe that any party political matter is attached to the vote. It seems quite reasonable for MPs to say that they are going to restore the power of Parliament in a small way by having the voice of Back Benchers heard. As I said, the House needs to be aware of that point in considering my amendment.

Greg Knight: One of the problems we currently have with Fridays is the abysmal attendance. I am not quite sure how I am going to vote on my hon. Friend's amendment, but his answer to this question may well be the deciding factor. If his amendment is accepted, will he give an undertaking that he will be here personally on each of the Fridays listed in it?

Peter Bone: I do not know whether this will encourage my right hon. Friend to vote for my amendment, but I would be here on each of those Fridays.
	I thought that my right hon. Friend might be about to mention the suggestion in the Rebuilding the House report that we should have sittings to discuss private Members' Bills on Wednesdays. I have already said that I would not press my amendment to a vote if the Deputy Leader of the House, who has now had time to consider that offer, were to suggest that we should keep the Fridays listed in the Government motion and add five Wednesdays, which would bring more people to the debates. I would be more than happy not to press my amendment to a vote in those circumstances, and I wonder whether she would like to intervene to give me her view on that. So far, the Government have said only, I beg to move.

Christopher Chope: Again, I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the debate. Has my hon. Friend received any indication from the Government on whether, in the most unlikely event of their being re-elected in the general election, they would be minded to allow more than 13 Fridays for private Members' Bills in what would be the long first Session of that new Parliament?

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend raises an issue that I touched on earlier, although in a slightly different way, when I said that Standing Orders do not allow for more than 13 such sittings per Session. The next Session will, however, be much longer than usual. If the general election is in June, the next Session could run until the November of next year. In a Session lasting a normal calendar year, one would have 13 such sittings, but one would expect more in a longer Session. I know, however, that Standing Orders would not permit that. It would therefore be necessary to table another Government motion to extend the number of sittings for private Members' Bills in the next Session to-

Peter Bottomley: Eighteen.

Peter Bone: Indeed. My hon. Friend is slightly quicker at maths than I am.
	I would certainly consider withdrawing my amendment if the Deputy Leader of the House were to pop up and say that the Government would table another motion on the timing of private Members' Bills, so that there could be 18 such sittings in the next Session. Again, however, there is a deathly silence-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is repeating himself. He has done so twice while I have been in the Chair, and, on his own admission, he has also repeated something that he said earlier. We are not like a cinema in continuous performance for the benefit of people arriving late. I suggest that he speak strictly to the terms of his amendment, which he has now done for some considerable time.

Peter Bone: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was, in fact, coming to my conclusion.

Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend confirm what he was saying earlier about his willingness to withdraw his amendment if the Government responded positively? He mentioned taking private Members' Bills on a Wednesday. I assume that he means that those debates would take place after the moment of interruption on a Wednesday, and not as part of the main business-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) will not be distracted by the distinguished Chairman of the Procedure Committee on matters of that kind. We are not talking about Wednesdays in this amendment; we are talking about Fridays.

Peter Bone: I want to be very clear that my amendment does not seek to change the precedent of discussing private Members' Bills on Fridays. I have deliberately not gone down that route, because it would involve a change to Standing Orders. My amendment simply seeks to make the House do what it says that it should do, which is to have 13 sittings for private Members' Bills. I have a problem, however, in that we have not heard the Government's arguments at all. The only words we have heard from them are, I beg to move, and a few interventions. I am therefore trying to anticipate what they might have said in putting forward an alternative argument.

David Wilshire: I am mindful of what you said about Wednesdays, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is quite right, but can my hon. Friend tell us why he chose the Fridays in his amendment? What is the significance of those particular Fridays?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, by his own admission, was unable to be here for a large part of the debate. Those points have been covered, and I shall have to invoke Standing Orders on repetition against the hon. Member for Wellingborough if he is tempted down that line.

Peter Bone: I am certainly not tempted down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	My amendment does not break Standing Orders in any way. The Government could have chosen the Fridays that I have chosen. None of them will be in a recess, including the anticipated Easter recess. Between each, enough days are provided for the presentation and publication of Bills, and there are enough days for the House to consider them. That is why 18 January could and should have been used.

Andrew Pelling: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being in the Chamber earlier in the debate. Constituency work kept me away, as I sat here throughout yesterday.
	In his commentaries on the amendment, has the hon. Gentleman been able to point out the comparison between this House and the US Congress? Congressmen make a very great merit with their constituents of legislation that they have personally got on to the statute book. Does not that emphasise the importance of the amendment, and of maximising the number of days available in the remainder of the time of this Parliament?

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point and that is on the record, but I do not want to be drawn into making comparisons with the US Senate. Clearly, the US Executive are outside Congress and the Executive here are in the House.
	It is very good news that the Government Chief Whip has turned up to listen to and encourage debate in the House on more time for parliamentary business. I am really pleased to see him here and I hope he has an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a little later.
	Other hon. Members may wish to speak in the debate, and I shall take this opportunity to conclude my remarks. By supporting my amendment, the House would not demur from anything in the Government motion and it would not affect any Member who has already selected a day.

Barbara Keeley: The motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House provides for private Members' Bills to be considered on eight Fridays, rather than the 13 provided for in Standing Order No. 14(4), and appoints the days.
	As I indicated earlier, we are, for the first time since 1997, in the fifth Session of a Parliament. That is key in the context of the motion. We know that the current Session must end no later than 10 May this year. That means that there could be a maximum of only 82 sitting days, including the eight Fridays proposed in the motion, which compares with an average of 158 sitting days per Session since 2001. The motion therefore reduces the number of sitting Fridays pro rata to match the length of the Session. As I have indicated a number of times in interventions, in 1991-92 and 1996-97, motions with a similar effect were proposed by the then Conservative Administrations and agreed by the House.
	The remaining provisions of the motion are consequential on the change in the number of days. They bring forward from the eighth to the fifth Friday the earliest date on which a Bill may be referred to a Second Reading Committee, and the date on which Bills start to take precedence according to how much progress they have made rather than simply according to the order in which they were introduced.
	The motion is not about restricting Members in any way. The Leader of the House tabled a motion, which announces dates pro rata to the length of the Session. The opposition of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) has so far prevented the dates from being set. We are considering a routine House motion, which is necessary to adapt the House's private Member's Bill procedures to the shorter fifth Session.
	The motion will allow the private Members' Bill process to continue in an orderly and predictable manner for hon. Members who have been fortunate enough in the ballot to make progress with their measures. I commend it to the House.

George Young: I am glad that the Government have finally allowed us to debate this matter-the motion and the amendment have been on the Order Paper since 23 November. I have raised the failure to resolve the matter in business questions, as have other hon. Members. Until today, there has been no certainty about the dates for discussing private Members' Bills. Again, the Government seemed to expect that they could assume Members' support when they timetabled House business. When opposition was expressed in the form of an amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) tabled, the Government assumed that they could get the motion through on the nod at the end of the day's business rather than allowing proper discussion, which we are now having. That is not right and it has been raised in the report, which my hon. Friend mentioned, about allowing the House more control over its business. Under the Wright scenario, I suspect that we would not have had the problems that my hon. Friend described.
	However, that is a debate for another day, together with whether we move private Members' Bills from Fridays to Wednesdays. I commend my hon. Friend's defence of private Members' Bills, which was made with no self-interest because I am afraid that he was not successful in the ballot. It is important that the House jealously protects private Members' time. I say that as someone who was successful in the ballot in 1997, when my main problem was not time, but Eric Forth. Getting the Bill round him was the major task, and, indeed, we did that.
	Of course, I sympathise with my hon. Friend's desire to maximise the number of days for private Members' Bills. However, the Government's proposal to act pro rata and move to a lower number to reflect the shorter Session is right. As the Deputy Leader of the House said, it is in line with previous practice.
	My hon. Friend made several compelling points, some more compelling than others. However, one of his more compelling points was that in a shorter Session, the number of days decreases, but in a longer Session, the number does not increase. The House may want to revert to that in the context of the Wright debate and allocating the future business of the House.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Can he, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, say that if a Conservative Government were elected later this year, they would take account of the extra length of the Session and allow more private Members' Fridays?

George Young: The short answer is no and the longer answer is probably also no, because the House has yet to debate the Wright report, whether we should have a business committee and how time should be allocated in future. I approach that with an open mind. I served on the Wright Committee and I have much sympathy with it, but I cannot today commit any future Administration to an increase in the pro rata number from 13 to 18 or a higher number, which my hon. Friend ingeniously tries to tempt me to do.
	On this occasion, I propose to support the Government's motion.

David Heath: The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) had no personal interest in the matter. However, I have enormous personal interest, having been successful in the ballot, albeit in a lowly position this year-not that one's position in the ballot makes much difference to making progress with private Members' legislation, because some Government Whip need only shout Object for a measure to fall, as I found out in the previous Session. Nevertheless, were the amendment accepted, it would allow time to enable my important School Transport Bill, which would provide for a yellow bus system in this country-greatly to the advantage of children throughout the country and, indeed, the environment-to progress, or at least be debated.
	However, the difficulty is typified by the debate. The Executive, not the House, prioritise the House's time for debate. The Executive decide what will happen and put that before the House, and only the Executive are allowed to do so. Answering on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman says he is unable to commit his party to taking a different position if it were to form the Executive in future, so the Executive would still have control of the business of the House. Back Benchers of all parties do not have as much control of the House's business as I think they should have.
	All of that would be corrected if we could make progress on the proposals in the Wright Committee report. I do not intend to debate them today, because they are not the substance of the issue before us, but making progress on that would have the following two results: first, we would never in future have before us another such motion in the name of a Minister; secondly, we would no longer have rationing of days by the Executive. Instead, that would be determined by a committee of the House. It would consider the rationale of all of this and whether it is appropriate to make the abatement which is the substance of the motion, and we would have the option to consider whether Wednesdays are a better day than Fridays for the consideration of private Members' business.
	So much is wrong with the current procedures for private Members' business. So many obstacles are put in the way of making rational progress on what may be very commendable Bills, and it appears to me that the will of the House is the last thing to be considered in respect of both the time made available for Bills and whether a Bill goes ahead. It is too simple to scupper something from a sedentary position, rather than debating matters and allowing the House to determine the result.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to say to the hon. Member that although he said he did not wish to have a wider debate, he seems now to be indulging in just that. He must come back to the amendment before the House today.

David Heath: The amendment and the motion, I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, the motion sets out the Fridays on which private Member's Bills can be considered, and I was considering the procedure that would be applied on those Fridays were the House to agree to them. My contention is simply that the procedure is in desperate need of reform. That is one of the key reforms put forward in the proposals, but it is typical of this Government that we have these proposals and they never get debated. Week after week, we ask at business questions for them to be debated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not being deliberately difficult, but he is now talking about the wider issue. He is perfectly correct to say that we are talking about the Fridays listed in the motion and the alternative Fridays in the amendment, but we should not be talking about the wider issues that may come out of the investigations of the Reform of the House of Commons Committee.

David Heath: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being inadvertently obtuse by not responding more promptly to your very clear instruction. I was attempting to say that such behaviour is typical of the Government in respect of the motion before us, as it has some of the key features: it is a motion, take it or leave it, and it has not been debated by the House until now. We have asked week after week for it to be debated. On each and every occasion that it has been listed for debate, the hon. Member for Wellingborough or one of his hon. Friends has shouted Object, and therefore it has not been debated. Had the Government wished to do so, they could have brought forward this debate at any stage in the last few weeks. It would have been in order for them to have done so. It would have been proper for them to have done so before the First Reading of private Members' Bills shortly before Christmas, but they did not do so. That is one reason why the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
	When I was asked for the date of the Second Reading of my own private Member's Bill, I said, Tomorrow, rather than name a specific date, none of which we knew at that stage because the House had not agreed to the timetable that is the substance of the Deputy Leader of the House's proposal. Because the House had not agreed that, I did not feel that I could assume either that the House would agree to the motion or that the hon. Gentleman's amendment would not be agreed to. I found myself in some difficulty, therefore, which is why I said, Tomorrow, when asked about the date for the Second Reading of my Bill.

Andrew Pelling: Will the hon. Gentleman briefly remind me of the Bill for which he thinks it so important to provide time for discussion in the House?

David Heath: At the risk of repeating myself and incurring the wrath of Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is the School Transport Bill, which in my opinion is a very important Bill, because it deals with matters affecting every schoolchild in this country, road-user safety and the inappropriate use of many vehicles on the morning school run. I am keen, therefore, that the Bill be given an opportunity, on one of these Fridays, to be debated, but I honestly do not believe that it will be if the motion is passed. But that is my misfortune. I should have arranged to be drawn No. 1 in the ballot, rather than No. 19. That way I would at least have ensured a Second Reading. However, it does not alter my view that private Members' business is important, that we should find proper opportunities to debate it and that we need to reform procedures of the House so that we do not get motions of the sort presented by the hon. Lady today.
	I agree with an interesting point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made. I do not think that Standing Orders currently provide for the procedure that appears to be accepted by everyone and which has been used previously. I do not think that the change proposed by the hon. Lady is provided for. Now, perhaps it should be. Perhaps there should be a provision in Standing Orders relating the number of days devoted to private Members' business to the length of the Session. That would be perfectly logical and is probably a view shared by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. There is logic in saying that there should be more days for a long Session and fewer for a short Session, and I do not think that any of us would disagree with that. However, if that is the intention, the House should decide and Standing Orders should provide for it, not for what on the face of it is the absolute opposite, which is an absolute number of days to be provided by the House-not Ministers-for the consideration of private Members' legislation.
	I am glad that we have finally had an opportunity to debate this matter. I have no idea why it had to be delayed for so long, other than the normal cloth-eared intransigence of the Conservative Front Bench- [Interruption.] I mean the Government Front Bench. I am sure that the Conservatives will be just as cloth-eared and intransigent when, and if, they ever form a Government, but we shall see-let us give them the benefit of the doubt, for the moment. However, we should have debated the matter earlier, and I certainly shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to make their own decisions on whether to support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough, because this is a House matter, not one to be determined by Front Benchers of whatever complexion.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesman for anticipating a possible result of the certain general election. The problem here is caused by the expiry of Parliament in May. The Government, who must have known that this was coming, ought to have suggested that there be two private Members' days in each sitting month. That would have solved the problem. It would give us roughly the 13 days that we want by working out the number of private Members' days in proportion to the number of weeks on which we are sitting.
	That does not mean that all private Members' Bills would be either discussed or necessarily passed. In memory of Eric Forth, there is what I call the Chope-Dismore choke. Any private Member's Bill has to get through this little parliamentary interest. Many of the concerns of those who promote these Bills are not about the people who object sitting down but about those who discuss the merits of the Bills and their possibilities on their feet-clearing their throats, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) did with some distinction and effect this afternoon.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is not suggesting, is he, that he does not think it a good idea that such Bills should be properly debated in the House?

Peter Bottomley: I certainly think it right that such Bills should be discussed, and I admire the way in which my hon. Friend manages to do that so effectively and, often, so extensively.

David Heath: If the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) were passed today, one of its inadvertent consequences would be that most of those days would be devoted to consideration of the nine Bills presented by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) earlier today.

Peter Bottomley: I will not deviate from what I intended to say, which is not as extensive as it would be if I followed every remark that the hon. Gentleman felt he ought to have made in his speech and that he has decided to put into mine.
	The reason for supporting the amendment is a simple one. Liberty and responsibility are things that people take; they are not things that are given. We should be saying to the establishment, which is represented at the moment by the Deputy Leader of the House and rather elegantly by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the shadow Leader of the House, who can see all the proper considerations, that if this House-that basically means those who are free to vote as they wish-votes as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough suggests, we will be taking responsibility for our affairs and using the liberty of our votes to say that we want those days for ourselves. I believe that we should do exactly that.
	I finish by making an observation that was made yesterday as well. It is rare that a Government motion, whether it be a motion on a Bill or a motion such as that which we are debating now, is discussed in the House-not put through on the nod, but discussed-and not a single Government Back Bencher speaks in favour of it.

Christopher Chope: Very briefly, I should like to put on record my admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who ensured that we got this debate by persistently blocking the motion on the Order Paper and not allowing it to go through on the nod. His amendment is first class. I am delighted that I was able to support it, and I look forward to voting for it soon.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 254.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Main Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That-
	(1) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
	In paragraph (4) the word 'eight' shall be substituted for the word 'thirteen' in line 42 and in paragraph (5) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 44;
	(2) Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:
	In paragraph (2) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 21; and
	(3) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 29 January; 5 and 26 February; 5 and 12 March; 23 and 30 April; and 7 May.

Election of the Deputy Speakers

Barbara Keeley: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the Fourth Report from the Procedure Committee of Session 2008-09 (House of Commons Paper No. 1080); endorses the principle that the Deputy Speakers should be chosen through a ballot of the whole House; and endorses the preparation by the Procedure Committee of detailed proposals for the election of the Deputy Speakers and the consideration by the Committee of the introduction of term-limits for the Speaker and Deputy Speakers.
	The motion on the Order Paper has been brought before the House at the request of the Procedure Committee. The Leader of the House is therefore facilitating that request, which I believe has cross-party support. On 2 July last year, Mr. Speaker proposed that Deputy Speakers should be elected. The Procedure Committee then conducted an inquiry, and on 2 November published its report, Election of the Deputy Speakers: Principles. In the report the Committee recognised that further work was needed, and before taking that work forward, it asked the House to endorse the principles that it has identified: that the Deputy Speakers should be elected; that they should be elected by the whole House in a way that ensures that the party balance within the House is respected; that the Procedure Committee should prepare detailed proposals for the House to consider at the start of the next Parliament; and that the Procedure Committee should examine the idea of adopting term limits for the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and make recommendations. I commend the work of the Procedure Committee in producing its report.

Andrew Pelling: In giving consideration to the acceptance of these principles, there are two important concerns. First, the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers clearly need to work as a team; therefore, although we have had the very successful election of a Speaker, there will be issues of compromising that teamwork if elections for Deputy Speaker take place. Secondly, on term limits for Speakers and Deputy Speakers, the House should give consideration to the impact that that might have on the ability of the Speaker's team of Deputy Speakers to be sufficiently independent of the House to be able to maintain its proper discipline and order.

Barbara Keeley: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sure that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, who is here with us, has heard it. However, it would not necessarily be appropriate for me to respond, as I am moving this motion on behalf of the Leader of the House, to facilitate the further work of the Procedure Committee in taking it forward.

Andrew Pelling: Will the Minister help me to understand this clearly? In her speech she said that we were accepting the principles; subsequently, in answer to my intervention, she said that this was purely a matter of process. Could she explain whether in supporting the motion we are accepting the principles of elections and term limits?

Barbara Keeley: As I said, we are accepting the idea that the Procedure Committee should examine the issue of adopting term limits. That is not to say that we are accepting term limits. We are adopting the principle as laid out but there is further work to do, and the Procedure Committee will be taking that forward. I hope that that is clear to the hon. Gentleman. If the House agrees to the motion the Procedure Committee will produce a further report. The motion simply asks the House to endorse this decision, and I commend it to the House.

Shailesh Vara: The motion reflects changing times, and Conservative Members support it. As the Deputy Speakers serve the whole House, there is merit in the argument that the whole House should have a say in who they are. Moreover, this is consistent with the arguments for reform of the House of Commons, in that there are proposals for the election of the Chairmen of Select Committees.
	By passing the motion, we will allow the Procedure Committee to continue urgent work to create the mechanism required for the election of Deputy Speakers. It will not be an easy task, as there are several matters to consider, not least to ensure that the party balance is maintained with the final result. Given that the aim is to ensure that the proposals are in place for the start of the new Parliament later this year, I wish the Procedure Committee well with all its deliberations.

David Heath: I, too, support the motion. It is sensible for the Procedure Committee to be given the green light to proceed with its deliberations. I had the great pleasure of discussing these matters with members of that Committee this afternoon, and I know that they are taking great care in looking at all aspects of the issues. The issues are complex; deciding the details of the scheme that will be put before the House is not as simple as might at first be perceived, and the Committee members are taking great care to consider all the implications. Nevertheless, it is right that today the House as a whole should give its imprimatur to the direction of travel that the Procedure Committee is taking.
	The one caveat that I enter is that there will be an impact on some of the procedure that will be needed in respect of the exact role of the Deputy Speaker. We are not, of course, discussing the Wright Committee today, but if its proposals for the future role of Deputy Speakers are adopted by the House in respect of giving the Chairman of Ways and Means greater influence over the programme and business of the House, that will have an impact on the eventual proposals put before the House. I am a little worried about the timing of those two factors and the impending general election. It would be greatly to the advantage of the House to have the matter determined before Dissolution, so that the new Parliament has the opportunity to elect the Deputy Speakers in good order at the start of the new Session. With that one caveat, I shall certainly advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion.

Greg Knight: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), her shadow, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), for their support for the motion. In answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I should say that the Procedure Committee shares his view that this matter will best be settled as soon as possible-certainly during the lifetime of this Parliament. The Procedure Committee is currently meeting weekly to try to meet that goal.
	As has been said, the motion is an endorsement of the principle of election for Deputy Speakers. I say to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) that I suppose some academic might say that we already have a system of election in place, in that the motion that comes before the House for their appointment may be voted on, and is amendable. However, the last time such a Division took place was in 1962. The downside of our current procedure is that such a motion is tabled without notice, so no Member in any part of the House has any time to reflect on whether he or she wishes to support the names being put forward. Indeed, on the day when it normally occurs-the day of state opening-there is no Order Paper. Members do not even get five minutes' thinking time, because the motion is moved without any notice at all. Some may say that the nominations are cloaked in secrecy.
	So the procedure is not transparent. However, I have to say that it has worked well in the past, and has delivered a number of excellent Deputy Speakers; I include the present incumbents in that description. However, I do think that it is now time to update our procedure to make it more transparent, and to give Members time to think about their choice.
	I do not intend to dwell in detail on the proposals because, as the Deputy Leader of the House has made clear, the motion is an endorsement of principle. If the House supports the motion, it will have an opportunity to go into greater detail at a later date. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) mentioned term limits; I should tell him that all the motion does is authorise the Procedure Committee to give consideration to the introduction of term limits. If the motion passes, the matter will not be concluded one way or the other today. The motion asks, and authorises, the Procedure Committee to look into the matter and make recommendations to the House.
	Today is not the day for detailed debate. The motion merely endorses the work we have done so far and authorises the Procedure Committee to continue. I would like to place on the record my thanks to all members of the Committee, of all parties, for the excellent work they have done so far. I support the motion, and urge the House to do so.

Peter Soulsby: As a member of the Procedure Committee, I follow its Chairman in welcoming the fact that the Government have laid this motion before us today. I welcome this opportunity for the House to endorse, as I hope it will, the Committee's proposals, enabling it to continue to examine the ways in which we can make a reality of the election of Deputy Speakers, following and building on the considerable success of the House's new procedures for the election of the Speaker.
	In response to the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I re-emphasise that a number of rather difficult matters of detail remain before the Committee. It is important that we continue, as the Chairman said, to meet weekly to deal with those matters, and we hope to bring some satisfactory proposals before the House in the not too distant future.
	Of course, this issue is not unrelated to those dealt with by the Wright Committee; indeed, the issue was before that Committee, which referred it to the Procedure Committee for its consideration. I hope the House has an early opportunity not only to debate the Wright Committee's recommendations, which need to be seen alongside those of the Procedure Committee, but to decide on them in a positive way.

Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, for explaining the difference between the two parts of this process. The House will want to agree the specifics of the preparation of detailed proposals for the election of Deputy Speakers, and he is right to draw our attention to the fact that his Committee will be considering the introduction of term limits. My view is that that will be difficult to achieve successfully. I can see why it is in the interests of the House for there to be a voluntary change of Speaker. It should be in the middle of a Parliament, although I can see why a Speaker might say that it would be more convenient for a term to end at the end of a Parliament, so that the change of Speaker does not cause a by-election. There may be a way of resolving that that the Committee could consider. Generally, it is better to trust people's judgment.
	My second caution is that although the question of having what is called gender balance has arisen in the Committee, I see no reason why, if this House is two-thirds male and one-third female, for example, we should not have two female Deputy Speakers and only one male Deputy Speaker. I see no problem with that. It would not be gender balance; it would be the consequence of the way people were chosen-or, under these proposals, elected. My gentle suggestion for the Committee to consider is that the first man and the first woman with the greatest number of votes could become Deputy Speakers, and that the third Deputy Speaker be the other candidate with the greatest number of votes, whether they get more or less than one of the other two. There are various ways of dealing with the matter, but having a rigid balance, or rigid proportions, strikes me as unnecessary.
	The other issue in my mind-besides recognising, as others have, the dedication of those who serve as Deputy Speakers and Chairman of Ways and Means-is that the House has been very lucky with those who have been prepared to hold those posts. Each of those positions is a position of service, rather than of ambition. That is one of the things that make this House rather endearing, and rather more effective than if all of us tried to go for such positions because we thought we needed the prominence.

Andrew Pelling: I want to make just one brief point, which I hope will be listened to. We are accepting the principle of a more obvious democratic process-voting for Deputy Speakers-but I raise this one concern. It is difficult and dangerous to appear to be talking in this way about moving towards further democracy within the House, but I am concerned that the election of a Deputy Speaker could be used as a means of leverage-a means of punishment of, or expression of a lack of confidence in, a sitting Speaker. That is one possible danger.
	Under the current process, although the appointment of Deputy Speakers is at the discretion of the House, they are very much part of a team. I can imagine that the stresses and strains of being part of a Speakership team are significant, and it is important not to get ourselves into a situation in which the House might elect a Deputy Speaker against the wishes of a Speaker with whom the House had fallen out.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate
	  
	Regulatory reform

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 18(1)),
	That the draft Legislative Reform (Revocation of Prescribed Form of Penalty Notice for Disorderly Behaviour) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 21 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved. -(Kerry McCarthy.)

PETITION
	  
	Badman Report (Maldon and East Chelmsford)

John Whittingdale: I wish to present a petition of behalf of Ms Katie Hiskett of Towers road, Heybridge and 26 other residents of my constituency. My constituents are extremely concerned about the recommendations of the Badman report and the impact that they will have on them and on others who wish to educate their children at home. The terms of this petition are similar to those of others that have been presented by many colleagues in the House, so I shall not read out the entire wording of the petition and shall merely say that I share the concern and support the petition.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of persons resident in the Maldon and East Chelmsford parliamentary constituency,
	 Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000693]

FAITH BUILDINGS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Kerry McCarthy.)

Sally Keeble: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this important subject, which has been a pressing one for people in my constituency for many years. I have pursued it through a number of different avenues, so it was with a sense of frustration that I sought this Adjournment debate. I did so because of the troubling difficulties in obtaining faith buildings in Northampton to serve our multi-faith community. This is an issue not only for Northampton, because faith communities in other parts of the country face similar difficulties in accessing sites and, in particular, obtaining planning consent. A simple search on the internet reveals a host of different disputes about planning applications for mosques, temples and a variety of other faith buildings.
	In some areas, lessons have been learned and there is some good practice. For example, in Birmingham there are proposals for needs assessments of faith communities in the city as part of regeneration work, and one borough in London has a unit to help faith communities to resolve their different issues in getting access to buildings in which to worship. However, I must tell the House that in Northampton faith communities have faced continuing difficulties in obtaining buildings in which to worship, despite the growth of those communities and the constructive role that they have played in our town for a good number of years.
	The town contains a substantial and extremely diverse Muslim community; people from different parts of the world have settled in the town and played an enormously supportive and constructive role. That community is undertaking its own census, but it is thought that the population is about 5,000 strong and it is hemmed in to two small house mosques-a converted and listed house, which I believe was the town's first mosque, and a converted service station. Although that is being redeveloped in a constructive way, with classrooms and different community facilities, and it is doing a good job, it remains at heart just a service station. It is located on quite a busy street and good relations have been built up with the neighbours, but the parking and street access is not ideal.
	The town also contains two substantial and successful Hindu communities. One has a planning application pending on a site for a multi-purpose building with community uses, which in the long run would include some nursery provision and sheltered housing. That would be a big addition to the disadvantaged local community but the planning application has run into difficulties, not least as objections have been made because bats apparently fly across the site.
	There is also a small but very active Sikh community that has long since outgrown its premises, which are down a side street in quite a run-down part of town. It wanted to buy part of a former school site for a very inspiring multi-faith and community centre. The county council, which owns the site, would not deal with the community or with me, and referred the matter on to the estate agents, who, after initially saying that they did not have a mandate to subdivide the site, referred the matter on to the property developer who had by then bought the site, who put the price up to such an exorbitant level that the community felt that it could not really proceed. Given that the application from the Sikh community was very much in line with the needs of the wider community of the town and would also bring benefits to quite a disadvantaged area, the county council's actions were at least questionable under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
	It has been very impressive to see the way in which the different communities-I have listed just a few of them and set out some of the problems that they have experienced-have been prepared to jump over all the hurdles that have been put in their way. They have been very constructive in engaging with the local authorities and the development corporation to try to promote good relations and a good understanding between all sections of society and to work for the common good. Some have also joined together to work on joint projects. All the plans that they have put forward that I have seen include making available significant resources for local communities. The proposals have been outward looking, not inward looking.
	Some years ago, because of all the difficulties, I contacted a former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to ask for some duty to be put on local planning authorities to assess the needs of different faith communities when drawing up local plans for their areas. That was obviously particularly relevant for growth areas such as Northampton, which is part of the Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area. There is a real opportunity to get things right from the beginning in such communities by ensuring that there is an understanding of the needs of the existing community and of the areas from which people are likely to come into town, and that in the planning of an urban area proper provision is made for faith buildings that will meet the needs of a multi-faith society.
	I was pointed in the direction of planning policy guidance note 12, which states that the diocesan board of the Church of England should be consulted about development plans and also refers to the needs of faith communities. As I recall, about half a sentence was devoted to the assessment of the needs of faith communities. This was the slightest reference that could conceivably have been given to faith communities-just enough to tick the Done box, but not enough to make any difference. Quite soon after that, PPG12 was replaced by planning policy statement 12, and any reference to faith communities completely disappeared. I have trawled through PPS12 several times and I have also asked the House of Commons Library to see whether it can find any reference in any of the planning guidance to the needs of faith communities. The Library says that it has not been able to find anything at all, and neither have I.
	Some of the guidance in Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities says that faith groups should be key and respected partners of the local authority. That seems to me to be a way of paying lip service to the importance of faith communities without ensuring that they have the one thing that faith communities want-a place, with facilities, in which to worship.

Andrew Pelling: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Will she allow me briefly to give some perceptions from Croydon, an authority which supports faith communities in finding premises? There are some good examples of the benefits of local authorities playing such a role. An attractive church in Croydon is now used by the Jain community. Unfortunately, there are also examples of important faith communities, which can build strong communities, not being well cared for. Black churches end up in industrial buildings or find themselves being heavily opposed, as happened in Bromley in the neighbouring constituency, when a black church moved into an old cinema in Upper Norwood. Finally, the Shi'a community in Croydon finds itself without any faith building. It is important to support the various Muslim communities in times of great stress within society and show how well we respect different faiths.

Sally Keeble: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's point. He illustrates why I sought this Adjournment debate. Society has changed substantially. With an established Church and a range of different faiths, we need to ensure that the needs of all the faiths are respected, not by providing handouts, but by making sure that difficult issues are managed properly, recognising that there are disputes between faiths sometimes and that there are different expressions of the same faith. We cannot say that there is one Muslim community so it needs only one mosque. There are different patterns of worship and different ways in which people want to express their faith.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that for some communities, starting off in an old building and converting it may be adequate. One of the mosques in Northampton started off in a house which is listed. The community has long since outgrown it and, partly because the building is listed, there is nothing much that anyone can do with it. We should recognise that as faiths become more established and grow in numbers, the community will want to move somewhere else. One that starts in a back street might want a different type of building, and one that starts on an industrial estate might find that that is not an appropriate place and want to find somewhere else.
	It is important that the local authority has ways to manage that. There is some good practice around the country, which the Government could examine and build on so that we ensure that people who come to this country and who bring with them their faith and their set of beliefs find that that aspect of their culture is respected and given its due place. Faith is an essential part of any community-an expression of its beliefs and values. I do not see how faith communities can be respected, as the guidance recommends, without ensuring that they are able to buy or build the facilities that they need for the pursuit and expression of their faith.
	Let me give an example, which taught me many years ago about the importance of faith buildings. When I was a newspaper reporter in South Africa, I went to Ladysmith in KwaZulu Natal to meet a mosque builder. He was born in India and as a boy worked for a mosque builder there. He came to South Africa as an indentured labourer to work in the sugarcane fields of KwaZulu Natal. Years went by, and when the Indian community in the area became more established, its members wanted a mosque. Because of apartheid, they could not go abroad to find someone to design it. The man came forward and said that he had worked as a mosque builder as a boy, and he could still remember the designs for the mosque. He drew them, and from those plans the beautiful mosque in Ladysmith was built. Indeed, he went on to build others throughout the country. The old man was a contemporary of Mahatma Gandhi; he worked with him, and he had been banned by the apartheid regime. When I met him, he was very old and almost completely blind, but he had left a wonderful legacy of amazing buildings that celebrated his faith and were a focal point of the community. I do not understand how, in the middle of apartheid South Africa, the Muslim community could manage to build that absolutely beautiful mosque, yet in tolerant, multiracial Britain my constituents have to worship in a converted service station or in a listed building, which is probably a fire risk when crowded out, as it so often is, during Friday prayers.
	The problem is not due to a lack of money, because nobody is asking for any handouts and, as the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) knows, the communities are all more than capable of raising money to construct such buildings. It is due to bureaucratic inertia, a lack of relevant guidance and procedures and a failure to understand the importance to faith communities of somewhere to worship. Our country has a great and historic legacy of cathedrals and other buildings that celebrate our faith. There have also been battles over the years for chapels and other Christian buildings. They are as important as the greatest cathedrals not only for tourism and worship, but for making a statement about large sections of our society. Unfortunately, however, we do not do the same for the other faiths that now make up our society.
	There are funding issues, but I do not want to get into them. Religions do not qualify as charities, so they cannot access the same funding as voluntary organisations, which can register as charities. Although religious organisations and faiths can access charity funding for the non-religious parts of their buildings, such as any community or educational facilities that are attached to their place of worship, the point still remains that, for a faith, the key aspect is the ability to worship. There is a difficult issue about funding, however, and that merits further consideration.
	My real request is for the Government to include in their guidance on local spatial planning a requirement for local authorities to assess the needs of religious or faith communities, and to ensure that relevant provisions are made to meet those spatial requirements. That includes proper funeral and burial arrangements. It is impossible to dictate what kind of building goes where, but I have listed a few examples of buildings, and the hon. Gentleman listed in his own area several that would meet the needs of different groups, including the number and type of mosques. However, space needs to be allocated, and faith communities need to be engaged in a process so that they can make the best and most appropriate use of those spaces. They also need to be assured that their contribution to community cohesion will be properly recognised in the planning process.
	It seems complete nonsense that a former school site, which is therefore in public ownership, having been used for public service, should be sold to a property developer on which to make a profit, while a faith community, which would have provided social cohesion and facilities for a disadvantaged local community, should be denied the chance even to try to buy a small fraction of it. Particularly in growing towns like Northampton, there is an opportunity to get things right. We must ensure that as local authorities and development corporations plan the schools, hospitals and infrastructure that they need, they recognise not only that people bring along their faiths and their belief systems, which are an important part of their community, but that those needs, as well as people's educational, health and other social needs, must be met.
	The former half-sentence included in PPG12 was certainly inadequate, but that half a sentence was better than nothing. I was extremely sorry that the already small recognition in the planning system of the needs of faith communities was completely deleted when PPG12 was cancelled. I was also sorry that when the Department was approached, rather than the requirement being built up, it was just deleted.
	The Government do not need to go out to huge consultation before drawing up some guidelines, which I hope they will do as a result of this debate. They should make a commitment to include in the planning guidance a requirement for local planning authorities, in undertaking development plans for the spatial needs of urban areas, to be obliged to assess the needs of the faith communities and to make proper provision in those plans for those needs. Authorities should be required to have a proper structure in place and to undertake proper consultation with the faith communities. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 provides an example. Proper recognition could be made of the real contribution of faith communities to the material benefit of local communities. This should be properly recognised, progressed and protected.
	I cannot tell my hon. Friend the Minister how important this is for the communities that have played such an active role in Northampton, and I am sure that the same applies to other towns throughout the country, which so far have not been able, despite their best and most strenuous efforts, to get what they perhaps want most of all-a place where they can meet as a community and worship. They need a proper landmark and tribute paid within their towns to the beliefs that they hold dear and that define their community.

Barbara Keeley: I hope that any hon. Members present and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not see me as a poor substitute for a Department for Communities and Local Government Minister; I shall try to do my best. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) for introducing this debate on faith buildings. I did not originally intend to be here, but I have found the debate to be fascinating. The issues posed crop up in many inner-city areas-mine as much as my hon. Friend's and others-so we need to look at them. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), who contributed in an intervention, have raised the key issues.
	The DCLG Minister was going to touch on the fact that this debate provides a rare opportunity to look at the issue of buildings owned or used by faith communities. In our short debate, we have considered the question of the interaction of faith groups with the planning system, and found it wanting. My hon. Friend made key points about that.
	It might help if I refer to some of the points that the DCLG Minister would have made in the debate. In terms of the bigger picture, the Government ask local authorities to show civic leadership in how they look at such issues. Local authorities are encouraged to create visions for their community; they are the bodies that can tackle the issues raised.
	My hon. Friend touched on planning policy statement 12, which is entitled Creating strong, safe and prosperous communities through local spatial planning. She rightly said that access to an appropriate building for a new faith community or one that is in the process of becoming established is a key issue that every local authority should address. Perhaps one of the places in which it should be addressed is the local strategic partnership. Those partnerships are meant to bring together the public, private and third sectors, and to co-ordinate the contribution that each can make.

Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend is not in any way a poor substitute; she knows a lot about planning. However, PPS12 contains nothing at all about faith communities. It is absolutely right that there should be debates in the local strategic partnerships and elsewhere, but I have found that that is all that happens. There have been lots of debates in the development corporation, for example, but we need action. There should be a statutory duty in the planning process to consider and to provide for the needs of faith communities. There must be a clear requirement in the process that those needs be considered and dealt with.

Barbara Keeley: Those points have been strongly made, and I will ensure that DCLG Ministers take them on board.
	It is clear that, even as the planning policy structures stand, they should be taking into account issues such as access for faith communities to land and buildings to allow them to follow their faith according to whatever form of witness they decide to adopt. There should be provision for places of worship, just as there is for child care, play and all the other things that are taken into account alongside the obvious factors such as industry, employment and the more standard parts of the national planning policy. The planning process is not meant to be one-size-fits-all, but local authorities-county and city councils-should be taking account of the needs of their own communities.

Andrew Pelling: Perhaps it is relevant that we are debating this on the night of Epiphany. I know that that is meant to be about the journey of the three wise men, but I can definitely see three wise women on the Labour Benches. I very much want to support what the Minister says. When members of communities such as the Shi'a community in Croydon have to move from one person's home to another to pray, it means that a great deal of the voluntary support that exists in the community is not delivered as well as it could be were there a place of worship in which they could base their community activities. The Minister makes an important point.

Barbara Keeley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
	The notes for the Minister's speech refer to various aspects of planning controls. I remember that when I was an elected member of local government and responsible for a town centre, I found dealing with planning controls to be one of the most frustrating aspects of that role. We constantly found ourselves battling with the system. Whatever the law says, it tends to be the planning officers who have a great deal of say over such matters.
	Whether the existing law is helpful or not, it says that buildings such as schools and public halls should be able to be turned into places of worship, just as they can be turned into day centres, crèches, health centres or whatever. My hon. Friend highlighted a key aspect of the issue when she described the wider benefit of those measures to community cohesion. I recently attended the opening of a new building for the Methodist community in Boothstown in my constituency. It will be a genuinely multi-use building. In fact, funding was obtained for it on the basis that it would not just be a place of worship-useful though that is-but double up as a resource that would be of considerable benefit to the wider community. That was absolutely key. If that point is not getting across to the local authority in my hon. Friend's constituency, it should be. Her point is well made, because faith communities are not only providers of sacred and secular space for people, but a key resource in communities, particularly for newly arrived communities or communities that are working to establish themselves.
	There have been publications recently on faith buildings, but the key thing is to take away the very strong point that in PPS12, we appear to have guidance that does not recognise, in even half a sentence, the need for regeneration bodies or other partnership bodies to take into account the needs of faith communities. We have heard some excellent examples in the debate of where PPS12 is falling down, and we should take my hon. Friend's points back to the Department.

Sally Keeble: I understand that my hon. Friend is in quite a difficult position because she is not a DCLG Minister. In her capacity as Deputy Leader of the House, could she, as a way forward, facilitate a meeting in that Department-perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to be party to it-to look both at the possibility of producing some appropriate guidance that would recognise this issue and at the need for strong guidance for local authorities, drawing on the good practice that already exists in some areas?

Barbara Keeley: Yes, indeed. My local authority is currently going through its strategic planning phase, as are many local authorities-I do not know whether my hon. Friend's local authority is doing so. My local authority is considering strategic planning up to 2026. That process, as well as the normal day-to-day planning applications to which she referred, is key. There is an indication that there is a very substantial gap or lacuna in the planning process. If my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman can cite examples where the guidance is not working at local level, it behoves the Department to start thinking about whether a duty should be placed on local councils to consider such things.
	The situation is that it will be inappropriate to carry on using converted service stations, disused cinemas or that type of building, and the new faith communities, as they settle, will not continue to be prepared to use them. It is true that we have some wonderful church buildings in our communities-there are some wonderful old churches in my constituency-but more newly arrived faith communities deserve buildings that are useful for purpose, too.
	I do not think that the Minister would have offered anything specific if he had responded to the debate, so my hon. Friend makes a very sensible suggestion. I am quite prepared, as if this were a pre-recess Adjournment debate, to take her point away and to facilitate a meeting for her.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adj ourned.